ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Government Estate (Savings)

Graham Evans: What savings to the public purse have resulted from changes to the Government estate in the last two years.

Francis Maude: The moratorium on new leases and on passing over breaks in existing leases has helped us across central Government to save the taxpayer some £278 million from property in just the first 10 months of the coalition Government’s time in office. To date, central Government have got out of more than 900 leases and released freeholds, and last year alone the size of the estate fell by 6%.

Graham Evans: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government will get value for taxpayers’ money by ensuring that, wherever possible, the publicly owned freehold estate is used to avoid the need for expensive leases?

Francis Maude: That is exactly our approach. Far too much of the freehold estate is under-occupied and far too many expensive leasehold properties are occupied in a very inefficient way. In Bristol alone we discovered that central Government, in their different forms, occupied 115 separate addresses, which is very inefficient and not at all conducive to joined-up government.

Jon Trickett: As you know, Mr Speaker, we should always watch what Ministers do, rather than simply listening to what they say. The problem with this Minister is that he promised millions of pounds of savings from other Departments while sneakily building up his own empire. In truth, his Department’s agencies had 23,000 square metres of office space when he came to office, but that figure has more than doubled to a staggering 56,000 square metres. Squeezing others while fattening up his own Department is hardly a policy that will incentivise colleagues to reduce their estate. When will he deliver the savings, and not just mythical ones?

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman ought to look a little more carefully at the facts. He will see that the National School of Government and the Central Office of Information, which had been part of quangoland under the previous Government, have been brought in-house and so have been closed down.

Peter Bone: May I satisfy the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and give the Minister for the Cabinet Office good news by suggesting that even more money could be saved by relocating out of London and coming to Wellingborough?

Francis Maude: I am confident that, under my hon. Friend’s benign guidance, Wellingborough is an incredibly good place for people to work. The size of the civil service is falling to its smallest since the second world war and we are reducing the number of people who need to be in central London, but if the opportunity to relocate people out of London arises, I am sure that Wellingborough will have a very good case to make.

Gloria De Piero: When it comes to making savings for the public purse, a constituent of mine has written to me: she works for the civil service and is travelling two to three times a week from Nottinghamshire to London to attend meetings that last about an hour. Is that not a ridiculous waste of money, and what are Ministers doing about it?

Francis Maude: Yes, indeed. I recommend that the Department for which the hon. Lady’s constituent works investigate the use of the telephone, which has been around for quite some time.

Big Society Capital

Sandra Osborne: What steps he plans to take to measure the social impact of Big Society Capital.

Ann McKechin: What steps he plans to take to measure the social impact of the Big Society Capital.

Nick Hurd: Big Society Capital exists to make it easier for charities and social enterprises across the UK to access capital. It has two measures of success: growth in social investment and the social impact of its investments. It is required to report annually on both the social and financial performance of those investments.

Sandra Osborne: I thank the Minister for that response. Cathy Pharoah of the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy has said that Big Society Capital is likely to be biased in favour of safe lending. How will the Minister ensure that smaller projects with higher-risk clients have access to it?

Nick Hurd: Big Society Capital is a fundraising organisation with a social mission and exists to correct a market failure. It will support innovation and grow the new social investment market and will invest across a range of products. All we have asked it to do is ensure that it secures a sufficient return to cover its costs.

Ann McKechin: In a written answer to me on 11 June, the Minister stated:
	“The Investment and Contract Readiness Fund applies to England only.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 218W.]
	Given that Big Society Capital is for the whole United Kingdom, how will companies in other parts of the country be able to secure the same assistance?

Nick Hurd: Ultimately, that is a matter for the devolved Administrations, but the hon. Lady is right: Big Society Capital has been set up to be available to charities and social enterprises throughout the UK. The investment and contract readiness fund—£10 million of grants—is available to charities and social enterprises in England which want to make themselves more investment-ready, but the policy area is devolved and therefore a matter for the devolved Administrations.

Robert Halfon: Smaller charities say that they have a harder time accessing capital than the big “Tesco” charities. How can we ensure that the big society benefits the little society?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is particularly relevant and valid in small charities week. He is entirely right. Access to capital affects smaller charities more than larger ones, and that is one reason why within two years we have developed and established the world’s first social investment institution, Big Society Capital, which exists to make such capital much easier to access.

Margaret Ritchie: In measuring the impact of Big Society Capital, will the Minister assure the House that the resource will tackle deprivation in hard-to-reach communities, particularly in Northern Ireland, where there are isolated rural communities and 35 scientifically measured areas of disadvantage?

Nick Hurd: I have been to Northern Ireland myself to make the point that Big Society Capital is available to charities and social enterprises there. The honest answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that any outcome depends on the quality of the investment proposition that intermediaries take to Big Society Capital, but we are very keen to engage with charities and social enterprises in Northern Ireland in order to make sure that the measure is as accessible to Northern Ireland as we say we want it to be.

Civil Servants (Redundancy)

Wayne David: What steps he is taking to support civil servants facing redundancy.

Francis Maude: All Departments are rightly required to maximise opportunities for redeployment within the Government and to make all reasonable efforts to avoid compulsory redundancies. All Departments also have in place appropriate support for those employees affected, including retraining, career coaching and advice, and help with CV writing.

Wayne David: Since the coalition Government were formed, 1,000 senior civil servants have left the civil service. How many senior civil servants does the Minister expect to leave in the immediate future?

Francis Maude: As I said a little earlier, the size of the civil service has already fallen to its smallest since the second world war, and there will be further downsizing, as we have made clear. The resignation rate of senior civil servants is stable: there is no higher turnover than before.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that next week the Government are going to publish their civil service reform plan, and that this issue may be one that the plan addresses as the Government try to set out a clear change programme for the whole of government?

Francis Maude: We will publish in due course a plan for civil service reform, the pattern of which will be incremental reform that is capable of implementation. It should not be another civil service reform plan that lies unimplemented, gathering dust on library shelves.

Government Contracts

Jason McCartney: What steps he is taking to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for Government contracts.

Francis Maude: It is our aim and aspiration that by the end of this Parliament 25% of central Government spend with outside providers should be with small and medium-sized enterprises. We have launched a series of radical measures to simplify the procurement process in order to make it easier and cheaper for all companies to see the business available with the Government and to bid and compete effectively. Our direct spend with SMEs since the Labour party left office is already on track to double.

Jason McCartney: How can SMEs in my constituency find out more about how to do more business with the Government?[Official Report, 18 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 3-4MC.]

Francis Maude: By looking at the Contracts Finder website, which is the main source of Government contracts over £100,000. That is the place where they should look, and I hope that they will, but since February 2011, when we announced our new approach, about a third of new contracts have already been awarded to SMEs.

Iain McKenzie: Will the Minister advise the House on what help or education have been given to small and medium-sized businesses regarding online e-procurement? Many small businesses in my constituency find it quite challenging to go online.

Francis Maude: I will look into that, but the hon. Gentleman might like to bring some of those suppliers to me to talk through the difficulties, because we want to make the process as easy as possible. Suppliers tell me that bidding for public sector contracts costs them typically four times as much as bidding for private sector contracts. The changes that we are making will radically reduce that, but we want to make sure that the process works, so I should be grateful for his help.

Mark Williams: According to the Federation of Small Businesses, 40% of businesses still say that the tendering process is too complex. There are some very good messages in the procurement pledge on the website that the Minister mentioned. What steps is he taking to encourage people to adopt the principles of the pledge?

Francis Maude: That is policy within central Government, and it should happen, although I am not for a moment claiming that it is universal yet. We want to hear about procurements that are not being done in the right way. In the wider public sector, we can do no more than exhort and encourage, and we will do so. However, it remains the case that if we are alerted to procurements being done in the old-fashioned way, which is very antagonistic to small businesses, we will intervene. We have got a number of those changed for the better.

Michael Dugher: The latest official figures continue to show that the proportion of procurement spend going to SMEs is decreasing in the majority of Government Departments. A recent survey by the FSB found that 40% of SMEs believe that the tendering process is too complicated, while 37% believe that they are being “sidelined” by the Government. Does the Minister agree with Mark Thompson, an adviser to his own Department, who said:
	“The reality is, government has very little idea of how to deal with SMEs and has very little in the way in terms of concrete plans here”?

Francis Maude: The main change is that for the first time there are official figures for this spend—the previous Government did not even bother to count it—and the numbers are going up. Obviously within each Department there will not necessarily be an even progress all the time—I would have thought that even the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to understand that—but across the whole of Government spend with SMEs has doubled. I would hope that he would enthusiastically welcome that.

Volunteering

Mark Spencer: What steps he is taking to reduce the administrative and regulatory burdens that affects the number of people who volunteer.

Nick Hurd: We want to make it much easier to volunteer, so we are implementing most of the recommendations in Lord Hodgson’s excellent report, “Unshackling Good Neighbours”. To identify any remaining burdens, we have launched the civil society red tape challenge and have urged the sector and the public to contribute by visiting the challenge website.

Mark Spencer: In Sherwood, many people are put off volunteering by unnecessary Criminal Records Bureau checks. Will the Minister update the House on how we can reduce that burden?

Nick Hurd: That is a frustration felt in many constituencies. My hon. Friend will be aware that changes are under way. There are two major thrusts of change: many fewer people will require checks; and those who do will find it much easier to carry those checks around the system—the portability for which people have been asking for some time. Those changes will largely be in place by next spring, and I am sure that they will be as welcome in Sherwood as they will in Ruislip.

Gregory Campbell: This issue has come up repeatedly. Does the Minister accept that in the coming years the red tape challenge
	will be judged on the numbers of people who are involved in volunteering and the verdict of those who want to volunteer?

Nick Hurd: All I know is that it is incumbent on Government to get out of the way as much as they can. Many areas of regulation are too intrusive and take up too much time and money that could be better used. I think that there is cross-party support for wanting to encourage more people to get involved, and if the Government can get out of the way, then we should.

Civil Service Pensions

Andrew Bridgen: What progress he has made on his plans to place civil service pensions on a sustainable footing.

Francis Maude: We are committed to ensuring that the reform of public sector pensions means that public servants will continue to receive pensions that are among the very best available. These now provide a fair deal for public service workers while being an affordable deal for the taxpayer and a good deal for the country that is sustainable in the long term. We have spent months negotiating a new scheme that was put to the civil service unions some months ago. I am pleased that four unions have now accepted the proposals.

Andrew Bridgen: I am sure that the 85% of the work force in my constituency who work in the private sector will welcome that response given that their pensions are, on average, far less generous than those available in the public sector, which they are also expected to fund. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an estimate of the sum that the taxpayer would be expected to pay for public sector pensions over the next 25 years if these reforms did not take place?

Francis Maude: It is perfectly clear that the reforms that we put in place across the public sector will save the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds over coming decades. The Office for Budget Responsibility will make a more precise calculation in its next long-term outlook.

Charitable Donations

Seema Malhotra: What discussions Ministers in his Department have had with their ministerial colleagues on charitable donations.

Nick Hurd: We liaise regularly with other Departments in the development of our agenda to encourage more giving of both time and money.

Seema Malhotra: Research from New Philanthropy Capital has revealed that 65% of charities are being forced to cut front-line services. In addition, after the way in which the tax relief proposal was handled, the expert Alana Lowe-Patraske said:
	“It remains to be seen if donors and charities trust this government on philanthropy”.
	Will the Minister update the House on how the Government will repair their relationships with charities?

Nick Hurd: I think the hon. Lady will find that most people in the sector and most commentators recognise and welcome the Chancellor’s change of mind on that. They also recognise that this is a Government absolutely committed to creating the conditions for charities and social enterprises to do more. That includes supporting more giving of time and money through initiatives such as the social action fund, through various match funding and through some generous tax incentives—

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Minister.

Richard Fuller: I commend the Government for their actions following the consultations on taxation and charitable donations, but may I urge the Minister to look again at the gift aid structure, and perhaps to consider a transfer to a system whereby individuals can deduct their charitable donations from their tax directly?

Nick Hurd: Gift aid and all matters relating to tax are a Treasury matter. My hon. Friend will be aware that gift aid is under constant review, and in the 2011 Budget some welcome initiatives were brought in to make gift aid easier to claim for small charities and small donations.

Behavioural Insights Team

Caroline Dinenage: What recent assessment he has made of the work of the behavioural insights team.

Nick Hurd: The team is headed by a steering board which is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary. In September 2011 the team published an annual update of its first year, and a two-year sunset review will be conducted by the board in summer 2012.

Caroline Dinenage: What financial saving does the Minister estimate has so far been made by this initiative?

Nick Hurd: The team does some very interesting work on encouraging behaviour to change in cost-effective ways. If my hon. Friend looks at the annual report, she will see some good examples. For instance, by slightly changing the wording in letters sent out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to self-assessment taxpayers who owed money, the team increased payment rates from 68% to 83%, which is estimated to lead to savings of £30 million a year in administrative and court costs if rolled out across the country.

Government Policy (Delivery)

Debbie Abrahams: What steps he has taken to ensure clarity and efficiency in the delivery of policy across Government.

Francis Maude: On 31 May we published business plans for 17 Government Departments, which clearly set out the actions that Departments will take to implement the Government’s reform priorities and by when. The No. 10 website publishes monthly updates on which actions have been completed and which are overdue.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister explain how one Government policy operating in direct conflict with another—for example, the withdrawal of the right to flexible working conflicting with support for carers—amounts to efficiency?

Francis Maude: The particular issues are well outside my responsibilities, but I will cheerfully look at the question that the hon. Lady raises.

Procurement Fraud

Douglas Carswell: What steps he is taking to reduce fraud in Government procurement.

Francis Maude: We are committed to tackling fraud and error in all areas of Government business, including public procurement. We believe that we can save the taxpayer billions of pounds a year by doing that across Government. Every central Government body will carry out a spend recovery audit by the end of next year, which should generate savings of between £50 million and £100 million. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have already recovered significant amounts by doing this.

Douglas Carswell: In welcoming the greater efficiencies and economies of scale that come from centralised procurement, does my right hon. Friend recognise the danger that centralised procurement can, in effect, throw up barriers to entry for smaller suppliers? Might this not help to explain why small and medium-sized enterprises are not always getting their fair share?

Francis Maude: As I said earlier, SMEs are increasing their share of Government business. It has doubled since the election and is set to continue further. I point my hon. Friend to what happened with the Government’s aggregated travel contract when we brought it together: one of the two contracts for travel across the whole of Government was won by a small business, which is rapidly becoming a bigger one.

Topical Questions

Duncan Hames: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, the industrial relations strategy in the public sector, government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber security.

Duncan Hames: In March, Ministers confirmed in this place that the Department was conducting a review into the long-term funding challenges facing the charity advice sector, as was promised to me by the Prime Minister last October. Will the Minister tell the House and the busy advisers, such as those at Wiltshire’s citizens advice bureau, what conclusions he has reached?

Francis Maude: Advice providers, like other parts of the voluntary sector, are facing a difficult funding situation. In the Budget, the Chancellor made £20 million available in each of the next two years to support the not-for-profit advice sector as it adapts. Our transition fund also provides support to 45 CABs and 17 law centres, and the Ministry of Justice is increasing funding for mediation services by £15 million to encourage greater use of mediation in disputes.

Gareth Thomas: Twelve months ago, the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave the Work programme as an example of the big society in action. A year on, some of the charities that signed up originally have gone bust and almost 100 have withdrawn their welfare-to-work expertise from the programme completely. Is this yet another example of the lack of leadership from Cabinet Office Ministers for charities across Whitehall, or can we finally expect some action to sort this mess out?

Francis Maude: I do not know from that question whether the hon. Gentleman believes it is right for social enterprises to play a major role in the provision of public services. We do, and more than 500 social enterprises and voluntary organisations are involved in the supply chain. I would have thought that he welcomed that.

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. Let us have a bit of order for Nicola Blackwood.

Nicola Blackwood: I am sure that the Minister will join me in applauding the work of the Archway Foundation, which for 30 years has been combating loneliness in my constituency. Like many charities, it is struggling increasingly with excessive regulation. What steps is he taking to combat red tape to let charities do what they do best, which is to help those who are most in need in our communities?

Nick Hurd: I am delighted to congratulate the Archway Foundation on its work. My hon. Friend is right that there is too much that gets in the way of charities and voluntary organisations in doing their work. That is why we are undertaking what is probably the most comprehensive review of the regulation and legislation that affects the sector.

Stephen Timms: The Department for Work and Pensions has no right to data. Absurdly, its Ministers have banned Work programme providers from publishing any data on their performance. That is the opposite of this Minister’s open data policy. What is he doing about it?

Francis Maude: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what we are doing about it: we are following the processes set up by the last Government.

Caroline Dinenage: What assessment has the Minister made of last year’s National Citizen Service pilots?

Nick Hurd: Independent research has shown that more than 8,000 teenagers committed almost 250,000 hours of service to their communities last year, that the customer satisfaction rating among the teenagers who took part was 93%, and that the benefit-cost ratio was 2:1. That was a good start and I encourage all colleagues of all parties to get involved with the NCS in their constituencies this summer. It is a fantastic opportunity for their young constituents.

Luciana Berger: The Government came to power promising a bonfire of the quangos. Will the Minister confirm, however, that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 creates more quangos than the Public Bodies Act 2011 abolished?

Francis Maude: No, Sir.

Adam Afriyie: The Minister for the Cabinet Office must be praised for his efforts in driving forward the open data agenda, through which dusty Government datasets are beginning to provide the jobs and economic growth that the country so desperately needs. What further measures does he have in mind to open up such dusty public sector datasets?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend has been a formidable, expert and passionate advocate of the open data agenda. Open data are the new raw material and can drive a huge amount of business growth. The Government are already the world leader in opening up data, but there is more to come. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is very unfair on the Minister that he is not being heard. He should be heard, as should all Members.

Valerie Vaz: The Government have sold off 250 freeholds of the nation’s buildings and land. If they are going to continue to do that, will the Minister ensure that there is a covenant in the conveyancing to ensure that the public have access to public land?

Francis Maude: I will look at the issue that the hon. Lady raises. If she has particular concerns about property to which public access should be guaranteed and is not, we will no doubt want to consider the matter.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Zac Goldsmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 June.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the servicemen who have fallen since the House last met, Captain Stephen Healey and Corporal Michael Thacker of 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh and Private Gregg Stone of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment. They were talented, dedicated soldiers who made the
	ultimate sacrifice for the safety of our nation. Our deepest condolences are with their families, their friends and their colleagues. We will always remember them.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Zac Goldsmith: I am sure all Members will wish to associate themselves with the Prime Minister’s tribute.
	Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that for as long as he is the Prime Minister, there will be no policy shift at all in relation to the third runway at Heathrow, and that this Government will focus their attention on improving Heathrow’s hub status by expanding links between London airports and displacing some of the short-haul and less valuable slots elsewhere?

David Cameron: I know that this is not just a constituency campaign for my hon. Friend but something he feels very powerfully about. I can tell him that the coalition position has not changed, but clearly we must not be blind to two important considerations: how we expand airport capacity overall, and how we ensure that Heathrow operates better and that we welcome people to our country better than we are at the moment. A lot of progress has been made on that agenda, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the extra resources and people that have been put into doing that important job.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Stephen Healey and Corporal Michael Thacker of 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh and Private Gregg Stone of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment. They served their country with dignity and bravery, and the condolences of the whole House go to their family and friends.
	Can the Prime Minister tell us why he referred Baroness Warsi to the independent adviser on ministerial interests but not the Culture Secretary?

David Cameron: Yes; I think there is a very significant difference between the two cases. In the case of Baroness Warsi, there has not been a judge-led inquiry, with witnesses taking evidence under oath, to get to all the factual information behind her case. That is why I have asked Sir Alex Allan to look at the case and establish some of the facts. I have to say, I am entirely happy with the explanation that I have been given by Baroness Warsi. She admits to breaking the ministerial code and has apologised for it, and I think that is a very important point.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister refers to the Leveson inquiry, but can he confirm that, in his appearance there, the Culture Secretary was quite properly—it is not the remit of the Leveson inquiry—not asked a single question about whether he misled this House and thereby broke the ministerial code?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically why I have not referred the case to the Sir Alex Allan. As he knows, I have not done that, but I have asked Sir Alex Allan for his advice on future guidance on, for instance, quasi-judicial decision making, which the right hon. Gentleman discussed at the Leveson
	inquiry and which I will discuss tomorrow as well. Sir Alex Allan has replied to my letter. I will put a copy of both letters in the Library of the House, but the House might want to know what he said:
	“I note your decision in relation to Jeremy Hunt’s adherence to the Ministerial Code which is of course a matter for you.”
	He went on:
	“The fact that there is an on-going judicial inquiry probing and taking evidence under oath means that I do not believe I could usefully add to the facts in this case”.
	He went on to say that he remains available if circumstances should change, but those are the views of Sir Alex Allan.

Edward Miliband: The key issue is who makes the judgment on whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code. This is what Lord Leveson said on 10 May:
	“I will not be making a judgment on whether there has been a breach of it, that is simply not my job”.
	In other words, it is the job of Sir Alex Allan.
	Let us take one of the issues that was—[ Interruption. ] I can see that Conservative Members have been well whipped today. They obviously got the memo from the Prime Minister’s aide, who is sending memos round. The last one began: “Comrades”—[ Laughter. ] I like the sound of that. “We need a protective wall of sound. Last week we rather dried up. Please show sufficient stamina for the full half hour.”
	Let us take one of the issues that was not raised at the Leveson inquiry. On 25 April, the Culture Secretary told the House: “I made absolutely”—[ Interruption. ] There is no point in the part-time Chancellor trying to give the Prime Minister the answer before I have asked the question. The Culture Secretary told the House:
	“I made absolutely no interventions”
	in “a quasi-judicial” process
	“that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business”,
	yet we now know that he wrote a memo to the Prime Minister that said:
	“If we block it our media sector will suffer for years.”
	Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Culture Secretary, in his answer from 25 April, was not straight with this House of Commons?

David Cameron: Let me first explain that, on the Government side of the House, “comrades” is a term of endearment, not an official title—[ Interruption. ] Liberal Democrat Members are also comrades.
	The point is that it is the job of the Prime Minister to make the judgment about ministerial code. I have made that judgment. I have quoted what Sir Alex Allan has said. He was very clear that he could not
	“usefully add to the facts in this case”.
	I am sorry that the political strategy behind the right hon. Gentleman’s Opposition motion has collapsed, but that is the fact of the case.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the note that the Culture Secretary sent to me on 19 November, in which he specifically says that it would be completely wrong to go against the proper regulatory procedures. The truth of what has happened in recent days is that the Culture Secretary gave a very full
	account of his actions to the Leveson inquiry, and demonstrated that, when it came to the BSkyB bid, he took independent advice at every part of the process and followed independent advice at every stage of the process, which is a complete contrast to how the previous Government behaved.

Edward Miliband: Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is claiming. The Culture Secretary told the House:
	“I made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 973, c. 543.]
	The Prime Minister is claiming that a memo to the Prime Minister is somehow an insignificant document in relation to a decision that the Government must make. It is the first time in political history that that is the case.
	If the Prime Minister’s case is so strong, why is the Deputy Prime Minister not supporting him?

David Cameron: Let me read exactly what the note from the Culture Secretary from 19 November states:
	“It would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length.”
	When he got responsibility for the dossier, he behaved in exactly that way.
	By the way, the whole reason we are discussing this takeover is that the previous Government changed the law to allow a foreign company to own a British broadcasting licence. Labour Members conveniently forget that point.
	The Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me be frank: we are talking about the relationships that Conservative politicians and Labour politicians have had over the past 20 years with News Corporation, News International and all the rest of it. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they did not have that relationship. Their abstention tonight will make that point. I understand that: it is politics—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down.

Edward Miliband: I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman has reached a new state of delusion—really and truly. He just wants to talk about the past—he was the future once. The Deputy Prime Minister says that the decision should go to the independent adviser, the Conservative chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration says it should be referred and the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life says that it should be referred—is it not the truth that the reason the Prime Minister will not refer the Culture Secretary to the independent adviser is that he is scared that the Culture Secretary will not be cleared?

David Cameron: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are talking about the past, but some elements of the Leveson inquiry and the relationship between politicians and the press are about the past. We had a little insight into that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), gave evidence. In an extraordinary moment, he said that
	“the one thing I can say”—
	the one thing—
	“definitely is that nobody in my position would have instructed…briefing against a senior minister”.
	Perhaps the victims could put their hands up. Any takers? I do not need Sir Alex Allan to adjudicate on that one.

Edward Miliband: The reality is that everyone knows that it was the Prime Minister who decided to appoint the Culture Secretary to oversee the bid and it is the Prime Minister who is clinging on to him now in the face of all the evidence. Does he not realise that it is no longer about the Culture Secretary’s judgment but about the Prime Minister’s, which is so badly flawed that even his deputy will not support him?

David Cameron: I hope that the England football team is better at putting the ball in the back of the net. The point is that it is for the adviser on ministerial standards to discover the facts and for the Prime Minister to make the judgment. My judgment is that we should let the Culture Secretary get on with organising the most important event, which is the Olympics. As we are on the Olympics, let us consider this: if there was an Olympic medal for double standards and rank hypocrisy, the Labour party would be well in the running.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Nigel Adams—[ Interruption. ] I am really very worried about the conduct of the Education Secretary. In the average classroom, he would have been excluded by now. He must calm himself.

Nigel Adams: As we remember those who fell 30 years ago during the Falklands war, Argentina continues to dispute British sovereignty over those islands yet continues to receive loans worth billions of pounds from the World Bank, in which British taxpayers are a major shareholder. Will the Prime Minister join President Obama in instructing his officials to vote against any more such loans to Argentina?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No British taxpayers’ money is spent on World Bank loans to Argentina, and I think that that is an important point, but what is even more important is what happened yesterday. The Falkland islanders have decided that they will hold a referendum to demonstrate that they believe in self-determination. That is important because Argentina continues to try to hide the argument and to pretend that the views of the Falkland islanders do not matter. They do matter; I hope that they will speak loudly and clearly and that Argentina will listen.

Pat McFadden: The Prime Minister just said that he believes that the Leveson inquiry dealt with all the relevant issues regarding the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but it did not deal with section 118 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which deals with market abuse and the passing of information to one party that is not available to others in a market situation. Given the hundreds of texts, e-mails and memos in this case, will he ask the Financial Services Authority to examine the evidence and see whether there has been a breach of section 118 or any part of that Act?

David Cameron: Clearly there are very strict rules, including the stock exchange code and the Act that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, governing all of these areas. The point I would make to him is that there is no doubt that the special adviser did behave wrongly. That is why he offered his resignation and that is why it was accepted.

Richard Graham: I am sure that all hon. Members will congratulate the volunteers who raised £6.5 million to recognise the contribution and sacrifice by Bomber Command personnel in the second world war. The memorial will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen on 28 June, but the costs for security on the day have risen sharply. Despite necessary constraints on all Government expenditure, will my right hon. Friend consider financial support from the Government to ensure that veterans and their relations are properly looked after?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Many people served in Bomber Command during the second world war and many lost their lives, so it is right that there will be this splendid memorial, unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen. These memorials tend to be paid for by public subscription and that is what has happened in this case, but I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does have the ability to intervene, especially when monuments and other things are done on a national basis for a national purpose. I am sure that the Culture Secretary will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

Tom Blenkinsop: Because of top-down Government health cuts, South Tees hospitals such as the Friarage and Guisborough hospitals in my constituency have had reduced services, leaving both hospitals uncertain of their future. Therefore, will the Prime Minister support his Foreign Secretary, who said to a crowd of 4,000 people that the Government NHS cuts are “unacceptable”?

David Cameron: I would point out that the increase in health spending for the hon. Gentleman’s primary care trust is 2.9%, a £8.2 million increase for the current year—[ Interruption. ] That is what is happening. The only reason more money is going into the health service in his constituency is because this coalition Government decided to invest in our NHS, against the advice that we received from the Opposition, who think that increases in health spending are “irresponsible”.

Cabinet Meeting (Kettering)

Philip Hollobone: If he will hold a future Cabinet meeting in Kettering.

David Cameron: As my hon. Friend knows, Cabinet meetings are occasionally held outside London, not least so that we can get Cabinet Ministers to different parts of the country to meet all sorts of different organisations. The Cabinet has so far met in Bradford, Derby, Ipswich, Cardiff and the Olympic park. Locations for future meetings—including, I hope, the east midlands—will be announced in due course.

Philip Hollobone: Were the Cabinet to come to Kettering, it would be able to congratulate Kettering borough council on its pledge to freeze its council tax for the next five years, and to celebrate the £210 million funding from the Department for Transport for the widening of the Kettering A14 bypass. But will my right hon. Friend also commit to upgrade and electrify the midland main line, a project that enjoys cross-party support and that would make a big difference to the Kettering economy?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating his borough council. That commitment on council tax is remarkable and shows what value-for-money services Conservative councils can provide. We are committed to electrifying more than 300 miles of railway routes, which compares with just nine miles that were electrified in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. There is a large amount of support for the midland main line electrification and the decision will depend on whether it is affordable and on assessing competing priorities, but I will listen very carefully—as I know the Treasury will too—to what he says.

Engagements

Elfyn Llwyd: Given that the purpose of the Leveson inquiry is to get at the unvarnished truth about the unhealthy relationship between some politicians and the media, why do Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, need to be briefed and coached by lawyers before attending to give evidence?

David Cameron: What Ministers, I am sure, are doing, as I have done, is refamiliarise themselves with a huge amount of evidence going back over seven years. For instance, I have provided to the Leveson inquiry all the evidence I can find of meetings with press editors, proprietors and the rest going back to December 2005. There is a huge amount of information preparation, which I think is entirely appropriate.

Fiona Bruce: My constituency has a high recycling rate—the best in the north-west—so does the Prime Minister believe it right for a huge waste-burning incinerator to be built there? The incinerator was rejected by the local planning board, is overwhelmingly opposed by my constituents in Middlewich and would involve transporting lorry-loads of waste hundreds of miles across the country. Will he do what he can to prevent an inappropriate development that surely cannot be called environmentally sustainable or an example of true localism?

David Cameron: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s concern; she is right to raise this issue and I can understand her disappointment that the local planning board’s decision was appealed against. As she knows, however, appeals against a decision on such a planning application can be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. She can make her views clear. It would be inappropriate to prejudge any decision that he might take, but obviously there is a need to take into account the size and scale of any proposed development and to consider the potential effect on any local community. I am sure that she will want to make those points.

Grahame Morris: The Prime Minister will be aware of the latest British social attitudes survey showing a record fall in public satisfaction with the NHS. I would like to know—I would appreciate an answer because his Health Secretary would not give me one yesterday—whether the Prime Minister will intervene to stop the scandal of the NHS having to reply on charitable donations to fund the purchase of the latest advanced radiotherapy equipment in regions such as mine, the north-east, and throughout the country?

David Cameron: The Government are putting record sums into the health service—we are increasing the money going into the health service—but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to stand here and criticise the volunteers, the charities and the big society, which provide so many scanners and great machines for our health service, I certainly will not. It adds to our health service. He raised, in particular, the survey. There is a 2011 survey of people who have actually used the health service, rather than one that asks people about their perceptions, and it found that 92% of in-patients rated their overall experience as good, very good or excellent. That is what is happening in our health service, and we should be proud of it.

Kris Hopkins: Will the Government go ahead with High Speed 2? The project is extremely important to the economy and jobs in the north. If the answer is yes, I suggest we start laying the track in west Yorkshire first.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that enthusiastic endorsement. I believe that we should go ahead with HS2. It is important for the country’s economy, and it is important that we get on board this high-speed rail revolution. It links to the question asked by my hon. Friend’s neighbour, as it were, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), about Heathrow. Many flights could be avoided if we had a network of high-speed rail in our country, and I am keen to press ahead.

Tristram Hunt: Before the last general election, the Prime Minister made an important speech condemning crony capitalism,
	“with money buying power, power fishing for money, and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest.”
	Is that not a pitch-perfect description of the undignified courting of News Corporation by the Culture Secretary? When will the Prime Minister show some judgment on this?

David Cameron: If they are looking for volunteers for the Olympic team for hypocrisy, I think we might have the decathlete. We had 13 years of pyjama parties, christenings, changing the law and sucking up to the Murdochs. Honestly, what a lot of brass neck!

Bob Blackman: In 44 days, the Olympics and Paralympics come to London, and millions of people will be coming to London to enjoy the games. Most of them will be
	totally dependent on public transport to reach the venues. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the Unite union for calling bus strikes, and does not the silence from the Labour party on this subject speak volumes about their attitude to Londoners?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we want an example of crony politics, frankly, it is the fact that the party opposite gets £5 million from the Unite union, and when it comes to this strike, which could disrupt the Olympics, we have had absolute silence—not a word of commendation. It is not surprising, because the Unite union does not just give the Labour party the money; it picks its leader as well.

Toby Perkins: The patient satisfaction survey results have shown the greatest reduction in patient satisfaction in the history of the national health service. What will the Prime Minister do to turn around perceptions of the failure of the NHS under his Government?

David Cameron: The King’s Fund, which carried out this survey, says:
	“There is no evidence of a real decline in service quality or performance”.
	That is what the King’s Fund says about its own survey. Frankly, I would put more weight on a survey of people who have actually been using the NHS. As I said, of the users of the NHS, 92% of in-patients and 95% of out-patients rated their overall experience as good, very good or excellent. I do not think that is surprising, because since the election there are 4,000 more doctors, mixed-sex accommodation is down 96%, hospital infections are at their lowest levels since surveillance began, the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks is also at its lowest since records began, and average waiting times are down as well. The health service is performing extremely well and we should praise all those who have delivered that performance.

Steve Brine: As a constituency MP, the Prime Minister will be aware of the current shortage in primary school places across our country. It is particularly acute in Winchester right now, where temporary classrooms are the order of the day, to accommodate reception year pupils for this September. May I ask the Prime Minister what the Government are doing to help councils in this bulge year, and whether he is confident that enough is being done to prevent a repeat performance when those pupils reach secondary school in six years’ time?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that in certain constituencies this is becoming an issue. What the Department for Education has done is put aside £1.4 billion of schools capital for 2011-12 and a further £1.4 billion for the subsequent year. There is also the opportunity, through free schools, to have excellent new schools established in hon. Members’ constituencies, so that we get not only new capacity, but the competition and choice that I believe will help to drive up standards.

Alison Seabeck: The use of food banks in Plymouth has gone up, from 790 food banks to nearly 4,000 in a year. Is the Prime
	Minister proud of the fact that it is his changes to benefit arrangements which are causing this to happen—there is no doubt about that—and is he therefore going to stand up and say, “Yes, that’s fine; food banks are lovely”? Yes, they are lovely, and the people of Plymouth are magnificent in the way they feed in to those, but will he pass the buck on this, and go for a gold medal in passing the buck, as he has over the Culture Secretary—

Mr Speaker: Order. We get the drift.

David Cameron: First, let me join the hon. Lady in praising people in Plymouth, who obviously do a huge amount for their neighbours and members of their community. That is all to the good. What I would say is yes, we have had to make difficult decisions, but we have actually protected tax credits for the least well-off and we have protected benefits for the least well-off. However, I have to say that the biggest welfare reform that we have made is to put a cap on welfare, where we have said that people should not be able to get on welfare more than the average family gets in work, which is £26,500 a year. However, when we put that forward, the Labour party voted against it.

Robin Walker: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much it would have cost this country to take part in the bail-out of Spain’s banks this week if he had not stood up for Britain and got us out of the previous Government’s commitments?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Before this Government came to power, bail-outs were carried out with Britain playing a full part—often by as much as 14% of the total—so in a €100 billion bail-out of Spain, Britain could have been paying as much as €14 billion, or £10 billion. That money has been saved because this Government, unlike the last one, stand up for Britain in Europe.

Steve Rotheram: Prime Minister, an omnishambles of Budget that you claimed you had read line by line; a double-dip recession that you made in Downing street; and a Tory-led Committee reporting that the coalition “lacks strategic direction”—evidence, if ever it was needed, that men can multi-task. It is just, obviously, that some are not very good at it. Prime Minister, have you now run out of steam, or is the job just too big for you?

David Cameron: I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is introducing compulsory poetry reading lessons in class. Perhaps we could start with the hon. Gentleman. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. What is rude is for people to continue shouting when they have been asked not to do so. I know that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) is exceptionally well behaved, and I know that he will sit in his usual quiet, respectful fashion.

David Burrowes: The Prime Minister has called for compassion for my constituent, Gary McKinnon, who doctors report is likely to take his life if he is extradited. The
	Deputy Prime Minister has also said that it would be cruel to extradite him. Will the Government be true to their word and stop the extradition and, finally, after 10 years, give Gary McKinnon his life back?

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on this issue. As he knows, the Home Secretary is carefully considering a wide range of material before making her decision. She has instructed two independent medical experts to view the various reports that have been submitted in this case. She will make her decision as quickly as possible, but this is not an easy case. A number of difficult issues have to be considered before she makes that announcement.

Gloria De Piero: The popular NHS walk-in centre in my constituency has recently closed, and similar walk-in centres are closing all over the country. Why?

David Cameron: It is certainly not because the money in the NHS is being cut, because it is not being cut. The money in the NHS is being increased. If we had followed the hon. Lady’s advice, however, the money would be going down. What matters is that the money in the NHS is spent to deliver better health outcomes, and I think that that is a decision that needs to be taken locally.

James Morris: Given the fascinating evidence that was presented by his predecessor to the Leveson inquiry, does the Prime Minister agree that it would be overwhelmingly in the public interest to publish the Downing street phone records, so that we can finally establish what conversations took place between his predecessor and Rupert Murdoch?

David Cameron: As my hon. Friend knows, Governments cannot release information provided by previous Governments, but I am sure that this is an issue that the previous Prime Minister will want to consider, given the very clear statement that he made.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister will probably not be aware that a firm in my constituency, Niche Drinks, produces cream liqueurs and other intermediate alcohol products. I do not know whether he ever chillaxes with such commodities. The company has recently planned a £10 million investment, and more than 40% of its exports are outside the EU. However, it and other similar firms on this island are worried that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is reinterpreting how to treat their products for duty purposes, under pressure from the European Commission following its erroneous interpretation of a European Court of Justice ruling in 2009. Will the Prime Minister ensure that a competent Treasury Minister meets me and other interested MPs to ensure that common sense and consistency prevail?

David Cameron: I have not tried one of those delicious-sounding beverages. If it is all right with the hon. Gentleman, I will wait until after tomorrow before doing so. I understand that there is an issue with HMRC,
	and I would be very happy to arrange a meeting between him and a Treasury Minister so that they can look carefully at this issue.

Mark Williams: Unprecedented levels of flooding hit the north Ceredigion communities at the weekend, causing untold damage to households, businesses and infrastructure. I thank the Prime Minister for his words of support to my constituents, and I know that he is aware of the speed with which Ceredigion county council, the emergency services and many in the local community rallied to ensure that there was no loss of life. Will he urge all the insurance companies to act on this matter now, with renewed speed, so that we can get the communities back on their feet as quickly as possible?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising the emergency services, which did a superb job at the weekend. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh First Minister to pass on my best wishes for the work that the emergency services had done. It was remarkable work. In all these flood situations, there is a rescue and emergency part, followed by a recovery phase. In many ways, the most difficult phase to get right is when people are going back into soaked homes with peeling plaster and all the other problems. That is when we need to ensure that they get swift action in the form of help from their district council and, above all, from the insurance companies. I will certainly work with my hon. Friend to ensure that that happens in this case.

Falkland Islands Referendum

David Lidington: With permission, I wish to inform the House that the Government of the Falkland Islands announced their intention yesterday to hold a referendum on the political status of the islands. This decision, which was taken by the Falkland Islanders themselves through their elected representatives, has the full support of the British Government. The referendum will be organised by the Falkland Islands Government and will take place in the first half of 2013. Independent international observers will be invited to observe the process.
	In the past, the Falkland Islanders have made it clear that they wish to remain a self-governing British overseas territory, and to continue living in the same peaceful and neighbourly manner that has characterised their long history on the islands, stretching back some nine generations. They have no interest in becoming a province of Argentina.
	Regrettably, however, not everyone has been willing to accept this reality. The Argentine Defence Minister recently accused the UK military of holding the islanders as hostages, while Argentina’s ambassador to this country has claimed that the islanders would be quite happy living under Argentine rule, apparently on the basis that some of them have been on holidays to Argentina.
	The islanders regularly rebut these baseless allegations and have recently embarked on an extensive campaign of public diplomacy around Latin America and more widely to ensure that their views are better known. The Foreign Office has offered extensive support to the islanders in doing so. Despite this, the Argentine Government continue either to misrepresent the views of the Falklanders or to dismiss them as irrelevant.
	Elsewhere in the region, the islanders have often been surprised by the lack of understanding about their wishes and their outlook on life. It is because of this that the islanders have decided to hold a referendum to eliminate any possible doubt in the eyes of the world as to what future they want. That will provide a legal, fair and decisive means for the people of the Falkland Islands to express their views.
	The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is responsible for the Falklands, is in Port Stanley today and has discussed the matter in detail with the islanders’ elected representatives. They are excited about the prospect of showing the region and, indeed, the whole world what future they want for their islands.
	As the House will be aware, tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands by British forces. Events will be held both on the islands themselves and here in the UK to commemorate the extraordinary series of events that unfolded 30 years ago. We will remember all those who paid the ultimate price in defence of basic freedoms. For the Falkland Islanders, tomorrow will bring mixed emotions: thankfulness to those who fought and won; sorrow for those whose lives were lost; and anger that an attempt should ever have been made to invade their home and deny their most basic rights.
	It is fitting that around the anniversary of their freedoms and rights being restored, the islanders should announce their intention to give these freedoms further expression through a referendum. In a region that advocates democracy and human rights, it is entirely appropriate that the Falkland Islanders should express this fundamental right. The principle of self-determination is a key part of the United Nations charter, as we and the islanders have repeatedly made clear and will continue to make clear.
	While the current Argentine Government insist that they will seek to recover the islands only via peaceful means, their behaviour towards the islanders remains aggressive in many other ways. Argentina has placed a ban on charter flights through Argentine airspace to the islands. It has banned Falkland Islands-flagged vessels from its ports and prevented cruise ships that have visited the Falklands from docking in Argentina. It has introduced domestic legislation to penalise companies who wish to do business with the Falkland Islands. It has sent threatening letters to those engaged in the wholly legitimate business of hydrocarbons exploration around the islands, and it has recently attempted to politicise the Olympic games by screening a deeply offensive television advert showing images of an Argentine athlete training on a war memorial on the islands. Those actions, directed by the Argentine Government towards an innocent population of 3,000 people, are not the actions of a responsible power on the world stage.
	While the Argentine Government have offered threats and misleading rhetoric, the islanders themselves have responded with dignity and determination. For our part, the British Government will continue to offer unequivocal support to the islanders by maintaining a defensive military posture on the islands, by supporting their growing economy, and by protecting their rights and wishes today just as we did 30 years ago.
	I believe that the forthcoming referendum will provide further evidence that the islanders alone will decide their future, and that it will offer a simple but powerful expression of democracy. I hope that Argentina, and indeed all in the international community, will take note of the islanders’ freely expressed democratic views. Further details will be announced by the Falkland Islands Government in due course, and I shall keep the House informed of developments.
	I commend the statement to the House.

John Spellar: I thank the Minister for his statement, and also for allowing me early sight of it, which was a clear indication of his natural courtesy. As he said, it has been plain to all but the most obdurate that it is the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain a self-governing British overseas territory, especially as the economic picture for the Falklands is improving, with both fishing and oil exploration prominent. He rightly highlighted the outrageous aggressive actions of the Argentine Government. Will he tell the House what action we are taking in international bodies to overcome them?
	As the Minister said, the Argentine Government still quite wrongly claim that the islanders would be happy to live under Argentine rule. A referendum with international observers would put that claim to rest once and for all. Will the Minister reassure us on the clear
	legal authority under which the referendum will be held, and can he assure us that the conduct and the question will meet appropriate standards so that there is a clear and unequivocal outcome?
	Today we also need to send a clear message of reassurance to the Falkland Islanders, and a warning to the Argentine authorities that our resolve in support of the Falkland Islands remains as firm as it was 30 years ago. Then, we faced an unprincipled and cowardly attack by the vicious Argentine military junta, an action that ultimately and fortunately led to the end of that regime. Our military responded heroically and successfully, and it is in honour of their memory as well that the House, on behalf of the country, should signal our continuing resolve. We welcome the assistance given by the Ministry of Defence to enabling veterans to attend the ceremonies in the Falklands. However, that resolve must also be backed by capability. The Minister rightly spoke of
	“maintaining a defensive military posture on the islands”,
	but can he reassure us that the cuts in the armed forces have not undermined our ability to deter any rash and irresponsible action? Aircraft carriers without aircraft do not send the right signal.
	We greatly fear that the stepping up of the aggressive rhetoric and actions of the Argentines which the Minister described is part of a wider campaign by an Administration who face considerable domestic problems. That pattern, unfortunately, is not unprecedented in a country blessed with great resources, fine people and, too often, dysfunctional politics.
	It will be no consolation to the Falkland Islanders to know that they are not alone in facing this attack. Spain is incensed by the forcible nationalisation of the Spanish stake in the oil company Repsol. We welcome the robust response from not only the Spanish Government but—as the Minister will be well aware form his portfolio—the EU foreign policy representative, Baroness Ashton, who rightly said that this created
	“legal insecurity for all European Union and foreign firms in the country.”
	She also said that the EU was considering “All possible options”.
	Can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with Spain and our other EU partners on how they will ensure that the Argentine authorities uphold their international commitments and obligations? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Baroness Ashton about the co-ordination of the European response across international forums? Although Repsol has indicated that it plans to take its case to the World Bank arbitrations court, it is reported that Spain may also raise the issue at the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies. What support will we be giving it in those bodies? In that context, we welcome the crucial support for Spain’s case from the United States and urge the Foreign Secretary to work closely with Secretary of State Clinton to bring this sorry episode to a successful conclusion. This issue is crucially linked to the Falklands question, because those who show cavalier disregard for the norms of international behaviour in one area will behave badly elsewhere. What will the Foreign Office be doing to make clear the link between these issues?
	In conclusion, as I have said, the Minister for Europe is a thoroughly likeable and decent Minister, but the future of the Falklands is of huge concern not only to
	the Falkland Islanders but to this country and, frankly, this statement should have been made by the Foreign Secretary, or by the Minister with responsibility for south America, who on this important occasion is actually—and properly—in the Falklands, along with the Opposition spokesman on south America. Surely it would have been better to await his return to give a report from the ground, or to have the Foreign Secretary give the strategic overview?

David Lidington: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his broad overall support for the statement and the Government’s policy on the Falklands and the Falkland Islanders. Thirty years ago the official position of the Labour party was to support Margaret Thatcher and her Government in standing up to Argentine aggression, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman personally represents the best of the Labour party’s patriotic tradition today. I shall chide him slightly for his final remarks, however. As I said in my statement, the timing of the announcement and the decision to hold a referendum were the responsibility of the Falklands Islands Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is on an important visit concerning vital British security interests abroad. He would have liked to have given this statement in person, but we felt—and he felt—that the correct thing to do was for Parliament to be informed as soon as possible after the Falkland Islands Government had made their announcement about the referendum that they have decided to hold. I make no apology for the fact that I have come to the House today. I fear the Opposition would have criticised the Government had we held off a statement on the referendum.
	Let me try to respond to some of the more detailed points the right hon. Gentleman raised. Yes, we are confident in the legal authority of the Falkland Islands Government to carry out the referendum. We want it to be conducted to the highest possible standards, and we will be encouraging the Falkland Islands Government to look at things like our own Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in order to see what best practice can offer. As I said in my statement, the Falklands Government, with our support, intend to invite independent foreign observers to ensure that the world can see that this election is being carried out to those high standards.
	In regard to military capability, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that all our analysis tells us that we have the right mix of military assets in the Falklands and the surrounding area and, critically, that they can if necessary be reinforced rapidly. The state of our military preparedness was reviewed by senior Ministers earlier this year, and their conclusion was that the right things are being done to ensure we can defend the Falklands in the way the House would expect.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about Spain and the Repsol case. We have made our position very clear to Spain; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when he met Spanish Foreign Minister Garcia-Margallo, a couple of weeks ago. We support its stance in protesting against Argentina’s action against Repsol, and we will continue to give Spain diplomatic support both bilaterally and in the appropriate international forums.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what representations we have made and what actions we have taken on behalf of the Falkland Islands through international bodies and more generally. We have made, and we will continue
	to make, all appropriate representations. For example, at the time of the controversy over access to ports in the region, we talked to Governments of other countries, particularly Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, which have all continued to allow into their ports vessels flying the red ensign. Trade is continuing normally, and countries in the region have made it clear to us that they have no wish to take part in any kind of trade boycott or blockade of the Falkland Islands.

James Gray: Both Front Benchers have rightly paid tribute to the magnificent efforts of our armed services 30 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend remember something without which the Falkland Islands would not have been liberated—the steely determination and, at a time when the Conservative party was languishing at 16% in the polls, the sheer political guts of my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher?

David Lidington: I am more than happy to acknowledge the importance of the leadership shown by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We pay tribute to all military personnel in the Falklands, including Keith Brown, who served with the Royal Marines and who is currently in the Falklands representing the Scottish Government as the Minister responsible for veterans affairs in the commemorations. We are delighted that the UK Government have recognised the right to self-determination. Will the Minister confirm that the referendum and its timing are a matter for local authorities, and that the UK Government will respect that?

David Lidington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is entirely appropriate that Keith Brown, as a Falklands veteran as well as a Minister in the Scottish Government, should be present in the islands at this historic moment. I salute the bravery of Mr Brown and the bravery of his colleagues in all three armed services who fought, 255 of whom made the ultimate sacrifice in that war.
	I rather expected from the hon. Gentleman a question that took us slightly wider than the south Atlantic. The Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory that, under the law and constitutional arrangements governing British overseas territories, has the right to decide whether to hold a referendum and the terms of that referendum. The case of Scotland is not comparable: the United Kingdom Government is intent on facilitating a referendum, as the Scottish Government have asked, but it must take place in proper, legal form in accordance with UK law on referendums.

Mr Speaker: Nothing further need be added. We are grateful to the Minister for his diligence.

Bob Russell: Tomorrow, there will be commemorations to mark the 30th anniversary of the liberation of the Falklands, including a service in Colchester for the Parachute Regiment, which excelled in that conflict. Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced 4,100 redundancies in the Army, Navy and Air Force. I invite Ministers to read the military history of the 20th century to see how the Government of the day performed with the nation’s defence interests.
	The Falklands are not the only islands in the south Atlantic. Without Ascension Island, and without 30 years of loyal support from the citizens of St Helena—both islands are overseas territories—the Falklands could not prosper. Put all three islands together economically.

David Lidington: The arrangements under which the Falklands, Ascension, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands are separate overseas territories work well. I assure my hon. Friend that when the National Security Council, which includes Ministers from both coalition parties, considered the Falklands’ security and defence earlier in the year, it looked at that not just in the context of the forces stationed on the islands but in the broader context of logistics, supply and reinforcement, and took into account all the points that concern my hon. Friend.

Derek Twigg: A few weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and I were guests at the unveiling of the Falklands memorial at the national arboretum, which again brought home to us the sacrifice made by our armed forces personnel.
	The Government and Parliament have been robust on the issue of self-determination, and will back it up with military might if necessary. Will the Minister ensure that the Government continue to give those strong messages so that there is no chink of light anywhere for the Argentines?

David Lidington: I take very seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Having visited the Falkland Islands, may I pay sincere tribute to the Falkland Islanders for their stoicism, patience and resilience in the face, as my right hon. Friend said, of bullying and commercial aggression from the Argentines? Will he do all that he can to persuade the Argentines and, indeed, all the countries in the region, to respect the outcome of the freely given wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands?

David Lidington: We shall certainly do so. It is a cause of sadness that, in an age in which democracy and human rights are part of the standard political culture in south America, the right to self-determination for the Falkland Islanders should be determinedly ignored by the Government of Argentina. We hope that they will listen and take proper account of the democratic wishes of the people of the Falklands.

Gerald Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole House is united in support of the right of the people of the Falkland Islands to remain British as long as they wish to do so, and will he make it clear to the predatory idiots in Buenos Aires that any aggressive act, whether military, diplomatic or trading, will be met by similar measures from this country? He referred to best practice in referendums, and may I remind him that not long ago, the people of Gibraltar held such a referendum? I led the supervisory team to make sure that it was totally valid, which it was. Will he tell the Spaniards to lay off Gibraltar?

David Lidington: We have made our views on Gibraltar clear on many occasions, and our support for the right of the people of Gibraltar to stay British remains a matter of record and firm Government policy. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is putting in a bid to visit Port Stanley as an election observer, but I welcome his support for the statement.

Tony Baldry: It is very sad that 30 years on, the Argentine Government are still sabre-rattling. Hopefully, the referendum will be the final word, demonstrating the intention of the people of the Falkland Islands to continue to be part of the United Kingdom’s overseas territories. To that end, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Inter-Parliamentary Union provides as many parliamentary observers as possible from different parts of the world so that parliamentarians from every corner of the globe can witness the fact that the referendum is carried out in a full and proper way?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. It is indeed important that observers are present from various different countries.

David Winnick: As someone who has always argued for self-determination, like many of my Labour colleagues—not incidentally, a unanimous view in years gone by—may I ask whether the Minister accepts that if one believes in self-determination one should respect the view of those people in the Falklands, which is probably unanimous, who want to retain their links with Britain? That view, which no doubt will be reflected in the referendum, should be respected not just by us but by the international community at large.

David Lidington: I am glad to say that I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

Stewart Jackson: This Government can be commended for their engagement with Latin America, which was marked by the Foreign Secretary’s Canning House speech in November 2010. The Minister will know that the Argentine Government’s and President Kirchner’s diplomatic campaign has been ongoing for many years. With that in mind, will he have a gentle word with his colleagues in the US State Department and remind them that their policy positions and use of language are extremely important to the persuasiveness of the British case?

David Lidington: As my hon. Friend knows, the position of the United States Government for many years has been that they recognise the de facto British administration of the Falkland Islands but do not take a position on sovereignty. I can assure him that the United States Administration, at the highest levels, are well aware of our position and determination regarding the Falklands, and I believe that the principle that self-determination and democratic consent are required for constitutional change is something that ought to be very appealing to American politicians and the American people.

Nigel Dodds: I, too, pay tribute to our armed forces who fought so valiantly to free the Falkland Islands from Argentine occupation 30 years ago. I warmly welcome the referendum because it will send a strong signal to Argentina and the wider
	world on where the people of the Falkland Islands stand. We need a referendum in the Falklands, we are going to have one in Scotland, and possibly one on the EU, but the good news from Northern Ireland, where legislation requires a referendum on its future status only if it appears that there might be a majority to take it out of the United Kingdom, is that in a poll yesterday only 7% of people there, including those who traditionally describe themselves as nationalist, said that they would vote for a united Ireland, so the Union is strong and enduring as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

Mr Speaker: The geographical dexterity of my colleagues never ceases to amaze me. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman’s seniority and distinction, I did not interrupt him, but I think we can probably leave it there.

Eleanor Laing: Ten years ago I had the honour of accompanying the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) as an observer of the referendum that took place in Gibraltar, which has been very important to its subsequent development. May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that steps should be taken to ensure that observers are available from many countries of the world so that the result of the democratically organised referendum in the Falklands can be spread far and wide and no one can argue with its result?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes her point with great clarity. I support the thrust of what she says.

Kate Hoey: The Minister will know that his statement is warmly welcomed not just across the House, but throughout the United Kingdom, which stands full square behind the right of the Falkland Islands to self-determination. Will he give an assurance that not a single penny of British taxpayers’ money will go to Argentina while it adopts this aggressive position on the Falkland Islands?

David Lidington: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House a short while ago, British taxpayers’ money is not going to Argentina through World Bank loans. Our position is that any bid by any country for a World Bank loan must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who leads on such policy decisions, will have careful regard to the hon. Lady’s comments.

Rory Stewart: As a number of Members have mentioned, the Government of Argentina will inevitably try to portray the result of the referendum as somehow rigged. May I say, in support of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), that in addition to having representatives from Latin America look at the elections, we should focus on observers from Commonwealth countries, a large number of which have not been fully supportive of the position of the Falkland Islands, because that will send a firm, credible message to the world?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think that it is important that, if at all possible, the observers include people from countries whose Governments have perhaps been sceptical in the way he describes.

Chris Bryant: I, too, fully stand behind the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, and I do so as a former Minister who had responsibility for them, but I have to say that the referendum in Gibraltar changed not one whit the view of the Spanish Government and we would be extremely naive if we were to think that we would change President Kirchner’s view by having the referendum. However, there are Argentine senators and members of Parliament, including Peronists, who simply laugh at their President’s position because they know that it is there for party political advantage and nothing else. Will the Minister confirm that calm and resolute negotiations with Argentina not on the basis of our holding the Falklands, but on other matters, is a better way than sabre-rattling?

David Lidington: One of the great sadnesses when reflecting on the situation in the south Atlantic over the past 10 years is the change in Argentine politics. Argentina has moved from what had appeared to be a policy of gradual accommodation and reconciliation towards the much more aggressive stance that President Kirchner has taken. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the United Kingdom continues to make it clear that we want a mutually beneficial, friendly relationship with Argentina but that that will not come at the price of selling out the democratic rights of the Falkland Islanders. That remains our position.

Nick de Bois: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning outright the Argentine navy’s recent attempts to intervene on, and even on occasion board, European fishing vessels operating under licence from the Falklands, which is exactly the sort of intimidation and bullying that the Falklanders have to face up to on a regular basis?

David Lidington: Yes.

Gemma Doyle: Like many Members, I have visited the Falklands—I went last November—and so particularly welcome the referendum, which will re-establish the will of the islanders. I urge the Minister to ensure that, with regard to expertise, sufficient support is giving to the Falkland Islands regional government and, in particular, the young people, who are so keen to play their part in the future of the islands and their economic development.

David Lidington: I certainly give the hon. Lady that assurance. We will give all possible help and support to the Falkland Islands Government in their preparations for the referendum. She makes a good point about the young people of the Falkland Islands. Tomorrow the President of Argentina is due to appear before the United Nations special committee on decolonisation. I understand that the Falkland Islands legislators who will represent the views of the islanders at that meeting will bring with them some of the young men and women from the Falklands who can make it clear that they, too, see themselves as British and wish to remain so.

Mark Reckless: It is enormously welcome that the Falkland Islanders will decide by referendum whether to govern themselves. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Chancellor that the time is coming for us to follow their example?

David Lidington: When Europe is facing an existential economic crisis, this is not the time to talk about a referendum on our membership of the EU.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his commitment to a referendum for the people of the Falklands. Oil has recently been discovered off the Falkland Islands. Will he assure the House that full protection will be given to any of the companies exploring for oil, that the benefit of any oil revenue will go to the people of the Falkland Islands and that any aggression from Argentina will be seen off?

David Lidington: The revenues from any successful oil and gas development will indeed accrue to the Falkland Islands Government. They have voluntarily said that they would want to share some of that revenue with the United Kingdom to offset the cost of our defence expenditure towards the islands. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do everything necessary to protect the legal right of the Falkland Islands to continue with hydrocarbon development.

Edward Timpson: Almost 10 years ago I was fortunate enough to visit the Falkland Islands, somewhat unusually on my honeymoon, so they hold a very special place in my heart—I am still married. I was struck by the dignity and pride of the islanders during my visit. In relation to the referendum, which I welcome, can my right hon. Friend give any more clarity on its terms, particularly who will be eligible to vote, because that might have an impact on its legitimacy across international boundaries?

David Lidington: It will ultimately be a matter for the Falkland Islands Government to determine. Our working assumption of the most likely arrangement is that those people who are on the current electoral roll of the Falkland Islands, about 1,500 people, will be the ones entitled to vote, but as I say it is a matter for the Falkland Islands Government.

Madeleine Moon: I have been fortunate enough to visit the Falkland Islands twice, most recently with the Defence Committee, and this House should commend the Falkland Islanders on the huge commitment and support that they give on an ongoing basis, generously and freely to veterans who served in the Falklands, whom they continue to welcome back and to host in the most amazing way. But we also met the chamber of commerce, with which I have had ongoing communication, and it is still having difficulties with Latin American countries blocking trade, transport and tourism. Will the Minister continue to look at that and ensure that international monitors from Latin America visit so that they can see that the rhetoric from Argentina is not having any impact and does not represent the view of the Falkland Islanders?

David Lidington: Having Latin American monitors is a sensible and creative idea, and, if the hon. Lady would like to share with my Department the particular instances that she knows about in terms of the obstruction of trade and so on, we will be happy to look into it further.

Oliver Colvile: May I congratulate this House on sending a firm message about how important the Falkland Islands are? May I also suggest that in the future White Paper on the
	British dependent territories my right hon. Friend considers offering them an opportunity to vote for a Member of the House of Lords, when it is eventually reformed, so that whether to Spain or to Argentina we can send the very clear message, “Hands off the British dependent territories”?

David Lidington: That is certainly an innovative idea, which I shall draw to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister.

David Wright: I welcome the fact that there is going to be a referendum, and I am confident that the people of the Falkland Islands will want to remain British—and I am proud of that, too. This country’s reserve forces have played a significant role in providing security on the islands, and we need to pay tribute to them. Has the Minister had any dialogue—I am sure he has—with his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence about ensuring that the reserve forces are kept at a sustainable level on the Falkland Islands?

David Lidington: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those members of the reserve forces who have served, and continue to serve, in defence of the Falkland Islanders, and I can assure him that there have been the conversations that he hopes for between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. He will know that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) is sitting beside me on the Government Front Bench, and the reserve forces will certainly continue to play an important role in the defence of the islands.

David Rutley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the President of Argentina should respect the principle of self-determination as a fundamental right, honour the outcome of the referendum and turn her attention to domestic challenges, rather than continuing her aggressive posturing towards the Falkland Islands?

David Lidington: I hope that President Kirchner, even now, will reflect on the fact that Argentina is a signatory to the United Nations charter, article 1.2 of which talks of members developing
	“friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.
	That right of self-determination applies to the people of the Falkland Islands as much as to people anywhere else.

Ian Murray: The economy of the Falkland Islands is almost entirely reliant on the fishing of squid, and a lot of exported squid goes to Spain. What discussions is the Minister having with other EU countries and, in particular, with Spain about keeping such trade channels open, despite the pressure from the Argentine Government?

David Lidington: So far as I am aware, all the evidence is that trade is continuing normally, despite the various
	pressures exerted by Argentina. Where there is evidence of interference with trade having been, or threatening to become, effective, we are always willing to intervene with the Governments concerned to ensure that we are able to explain and reassert the legal rights of the Falklanders to the resources within their waters, and to ensure that trade patterns resume as normal.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. We are going to have call a halt soon, because we have other business and time for that must be protected, but we will take a couple more questions, with the emphasis on brevity.

Martin Horwood: Much as we all love referendums and rightly remain absolutely committed to the principle of self-determination in the case of the Falklands, is it nevertheless part of the Government’s strategy, once these important and emotionally charged anniversaries are over, to rebuild relations with what should be a friendly democracy in Argentina?

David Lidington: We have never sought to shift away from a friendly and constructive relationship with Argentina, whether political or commercial. It is Argentina, under its current leadership, that has chosen to walk away from the prospect of a fruitful relationship with the United Kingdom. We will be only too willing to have the sort of warm relationship with Argentina which ought to exist, but in order to seek that we are not prepared to sacrifice or to put at risk the self-determination of the people of the Falklands.

Penny Mordaunt: What discussions have the Government had, specifically on the referendum, with Argentina’s neighbouring countries, many of which are becoming increasingly embarrassed by President Kirchner’s actions?

David Lidington: We are in frequent contact, at both official and ministerial level, with other countries in the region. Although most countries of south America support the Argentine claim to sovereignty, they also make it clear that they do not want to be participants in any trade boycott or effort to bully the people of the Falkland Islands.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr Bob Stewart.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Recently the Argentine Government have accused us, the British, of militarising the south Atlantic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why we have strong, effective and deterrent armed forces on the Falkland Islands is that Argentina continues to make threats that might turn to military ones?

David Lidington: As so often, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

[Relevant document: The Twenty Second Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2010-12, on The Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests: independent or not?, HC 1761.]

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport should be referred to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests to investigate whether he breached paragraph 1.2c (giving accurate and truthful information to Parliament) and paragraph 3.3 (responsibility for his special adviser) of the Ministerial Code.
	This debate takes place while the Leveson inquiry is doing its work, but I make it clear that the motion before the House is not about the issues that are the subject of the inquiry; today’s motion is about the rights of the House and the ministerial code, issues that Lord Justice Leveson made clear he is not going to consider and report on. Indeed, he cannot consider those matters, because article 9 of the Bill of Rights prevents him from so doing.
	It was right to establish the Leveson inquiry. Its work is of huge importance and, after Lord Justice Leveson has reported, we will need to place great weight on his proposals and to give them deep consideration. We have, arising out of his inquiry, an historic opportunity to create a better settlement for the future, and I look forward to us all working together to achieve that, but that is not what the motion before us is about.
	This debate is about protecting the rights of this House so that we can do the job we were elected to do—of holding Ministers to account and ensuring high standards in ministerial office, as set out in the ministerial code.
	The ministerial code is not just a matter for the Prime Minister; it is a matter for this House. The motion before the House asks that the Secretary of State be referred to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, and nothing in Sir Alex Allan’s reply to the Prime Minister today changes that. There are two issues at stake here: misleading the House and failing to take responsibility for his special adviser.

Alun Cairns: Sir Alex Allan’s response clearly said—[ Interruption. ] I am reading from the letter that was placed in the Library of the House, which clearly states:
	“I do not believe that I could usefully add to the facts in the case”.
	Does not that undermine the statements that the right hon. and learned Lady has just made?

Harriet Harman: The process is that where there is a prima facie case—where there are facts—it is for the independent adviser to look at those facts and to make a judgment about whether the ministerial code—

Alun Cairns: rose —

Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish?
	It is for the independent adviser to make a judgment on whether the ministerial code has been breached so that he can advise the Prime Minister on whether, in his view, there has been such a breach. That is due process. When there are facts out there that tend to indicate a breach of the code, the process is to have the independent adviser able not only to hear the argument from the person in respect of whom a breach has been alleged but to look at the facts that are out there. That is the process by which the Prime Minister can then make his decision.
	It is very telling that the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to stop that process taking place. That is why—

Alun Cairns: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will not take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but I would say to him as a Back Bencher—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the right hon. and learned Lady take an intervention from me instead?

Harriet Harman: May I have the opportunity to address myself to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)? As a Back Bencher, he ought to be jealous of the interests of the House in ensuring that Ministers give full information. That is what this is about.

Ian Lucas: Sir Alex Allan is described as the independent adviser. Is it not suspicious that the letter to him from the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister used to defend himself today at Prime Minister’s questions was dated 13 June—today—and that he received his reply on 13 June, also today? Does not this question the position of Sir Alex Allan and call into question his independence?

Harriet Harman: I think that the exchange—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members on both sides of the House need to calm down. I always listen with great interest to the pronouncements of the Secretary of State for Education, but I say to him in all courtesy that his pronouncements from a sedentary position on matters for which he has no direct ministerial responsibility add nothing. I am not interested; I do not want to hear them. The right hon. Gentleman should sit silently and listen to the debate. If he feels unable to do that, he is welcome to depart the Chamber, and we will just about manage without him.

Harriet Harman: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I think that the exchange of letters from the Prime Minister is nothing more than an attempt to distract and provide a smokescreen, and we should not be distracted from the very important issues that are the subject of this motion: misleading the House and failing to take responsibility for a special adviser.

Andrew Bridgen: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will make a bit of progress, if I may, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	First, there is the obligation to give accurate and truthful information to the House. On 19 March 1997, this House resolved that one of the principles that the House sees as being of paramount importance is
	“that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
	The seriousness that the House places on this is underlined by the resolution going on to say:
	“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
	That is the wording of paragraph 1.2.c. of the ministerial code. This is not just some old-fashioned relic of House pomposity; it matters. I know that Members in all parts of the House regard—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I would think that it would be common agreement that the ministerial code is important, and I am, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, simply setting out what the ministerial code says. I cannot believe that he wants to take issue with my describing, at the outset of moving this motion, what the ministerial code says. I put it to the hon. Gentleman: does he, as a Back Bencher, believe that his rights as a Back Bencher are important and that Ministers should answer truthfully to this House?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful and flattered that the deputy leader of the Labour party should want to intervene on me while I am in a sedentary position. I would like to put to her the question about “knowingly” misleading the House. There is no suggestion whatever from any quarter that the Secretary of State ever knowingly misled this House.

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would have heard me say that the ministerial code says that if there is an inadvertent error, it must be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Andrew Bridgen: rose —

Guy Opperman: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will proceed, if I may.
	Despite the interventions, I know that Members in all parts of the House regard the question of truth, accuracy and full disclosure to Parliament as fundamental. We cannot settle for anything less if we are to hold Ministers to account. Putting it at its very lowest, there is prima facie evidence that the Secretary of State failed to give accurate and truthful information to the House.
	On 3 March 2011—[ Interruption. ] I ask hon. Members to bear with me while I set out what I believe to be the facts at issue. On 3 March 2011, in reply to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Secretary of State told the House that in respect of his handling of the Murdoch bid for BSkyB he had published
	“all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
	I have here the documents that he published on that day. Many of them, such as written ministerial statements, the European intervention notice and press releases from the European Commission, were already in the public domain.
	But when the Murdochs came to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry, we discovered that all the exchanges had not been published. No: there had been literally hundreds of exchanges between the Secretary of State’s Department and News Corporation that he had not published. Over the course of many months, both when the bid was the responsibility of the Business Secretary and when it was his responsibility, there had been literally hundreds of exchanges—texts, e-mails, reports of phone calls—none of which had been disclosed to this House. So while on 3 March 2011 we were told that the pile was only this big, a full year later, on 24 April, and thanks only to the Leveson inquiry, we discovered that it was this big. Even though the Secretary of State says that he did not know of the volume and content of the exchanges between his special adviser and News Corporation, he did know of their existence, because, as he told the House on 25 April, he had authorised those exchanges.
	There is a second occasion where there is prima facie evidence of the Secretary of State not being accurate and truthful to the House. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) during his statement to the House on 25 April, he said that he
	“made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 973.]
	But it emerged during evidence to the Leveson inquiry that on 19 November 2010, when it was—

Alun Cairns: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I am trying to set out—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to show some sensitivity to the conventions of the House. He asked the right hon. and learned Lady to give way and the answer was no; he should not keep persisting at it. He can have another go later if he wants. [ Interruption. ] Order. I do not need any guidance from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), on the strength of her two years in the House, about correct parliamentary procedure. The hon. Lady is a very distinguished figure and a rising star, but I think I can probably just about get by without her assistance.

Harriet Harman: Asking the House to vote for a referral to the independent adviser is a serious matter. I am seeking to set out the facts on which I ask the House to make the judgment when it votes. That is why I am going through the facts.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: No, I am not going to give way. I owe it to the House to set out the case that I am making, based on the facts.
	It emerged during the evidence to the Leveson inquiry that on 19 November 2010, when it was the Business Secretary’s responsibility, the Culture Secretary sent a memo to the Prime Minister about the News Corporation bid for BSkyB, setting out his views and asking for a meeting. In anyone’s book, a memo setting out his views and asking for a meeting is an intervention.
	Secondly, in relation to the Culture Secretary’s special adviser, special advisers have a political role and are appointed directly by the Secretary of State. That is why the ministerial code places responsibility for their management and conduct on the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State acknowledged this at the Leveson inquiry. It was put to him that the person responsible for Adam Smith’s discipline
	“was you, not the Civil Service, wasn’t it?”
	The Culture Secretary replied:
	“Well, he reported to me, yes”,
	and went on to say:
	“I do have responsibility for what he does. I actually have responsibility for whatever everyone in my Department does, but I have more direct responsibility for the people who are my direct reports.”
	Quite so. But at the very least there is prima facie evidence that the Secretary of State failed to take responsibility for the management and conduct of his special adviser—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Harriet Harman: I will not take interventions at this point, not because I am not prepared to debate, but because I need to set out to the House what the rules are and what our case is as to why those rules have been broken.
	There is at the very least prima facie evidence that the Secretary of State failed to take responsibility for the management and conduct of his special adviser. Either he did not know what he was doing when his special adviser was overstepping the mark—and that was a breach of the code—or, as people think more likely, he did know what he was doing when Adam Smith was overstepping the mark, and that, too, would have been a breach of the code. Whichever way one looks at it, there has been a clear breach of the ministerial code.
	All Members of the House agree on the importance of upholding the standards contained in the ministerial code. In their 2010 manifesto the Liberal Democrats made “cleaning up politics” one of their
	“four steps to a fairer Britain”.
	As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said last night:
	“There is clearly a case to answer and given that we are being asked to support the Prime Minister’s judgment call that there is a case to answer, we can’t in all honesty and integrity do that.”
	The Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, promised to strengthen the ministerial code, and when he came into Government he said in his foreword to the ministerial code in 2010:
	“we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down.”
	He was right then, and that is why he should refer the Secretary of State. He cannot apply the rules to Baroness Warsi but not to his Culture Secretary.
	The ministerial code is important. It must be complied with. The House cannot let breaches of the code be swept under the carpet, so I strongly urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to reflect on this, support the rights of the House, reinforce the importance of the ministerial code and vote in support of the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must try to contain itself. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members groaning. Some Members are getting very over-excited. It is early in the day. There is a long time to go. I suggest that Members calm down.

Jeremy Hunt: At the heart of this debate are two allegations about the ministerial code, so let me address them straight away—first, the disgraceful allegation that I deliberately misled Parliament—[Interruption.] Do Opposition Members want to hear what I have to say about it, since they called the debate?
	In response to a question on 3 March 2011 I stated that I had published correspondence between myself and News Corp. In answers to those questions I referred back to that statement, and if there was any misunderstanding about the extent to which I was publishing correspondence, it was addressed as long ago as last September in a written parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). That spelled out precisely what information I was releasing and what information I was not releasing.
	I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has found it difficult to read the volume of correspondence that I published. The content of the correspondence is what is important. If she read it, she would see that I have taken more trouble and published more information than probably any other Government have published in any previous bid. I made huge efforts to be transparent and she knows it perfectly well.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jeremy Hunt: I will give way in a moment.
	Paragraph 1.2.c of the ministerial code, to which the right hon. and learned Lady referred, is very clear. If Ministers make an inadvertent error, they should correct it at the earliest possible opportunity, which I did, not breaking the ministerial code, but acting in accordance with it. I have not very often had to correct things that I have said, but may I remind the right hon. and learned Lady that she had to correct the record in January 2010, May 2009, April 2009, July 2008, July 2007 and November 2003—one of many aspects of this job where she has much more experience than I do.

Chris Bryant: I have had to correct the record as well. There is no dishonour in correcting the record. However, what the Minister just referred to was his reply on 7 September, when he said that it was for reasons of cost that he was not able to provide anything more. How much would it have cost him to
	remember that he had sent a memo to the Prime Minister on the matter, or to have checked his own mobile phone for the text messages that he sent to James Murdoch? He has lied to Parliament.
	[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. [ Interruption.] Order. Let me say to the House that the substantive matter under consideration reflected in the terms of the motion is whether the House of Commons has been misled in any way. That is the thrust of the matter under debate and the Secretary of State is making a very clear defence of himself, so when Members cavil and inquire whether what we have heard is legitimate, I am guided by advice and I operate on the basis that there is a substantive motion, which is what the whole debate is about and in relation to which the Secretary of State is speaking.
	In general terms, the normal principles of “Erskine May” about moderation and good humour apply, but I cannot preclude—[Interruption.] Order. I cannot preclude a Member operating in accordance with the terms of the motion. The Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Order. I require no assistance from the Immigration Minister. The Minister should sit, be calm and listen intently. If he does not want to do so, he can leave the Chamber.

George Young: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether everyone heard correctly the allegation that was made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). As I understood it, he accused my right hon. Friend of lying to Parliament. My understanding is that that is unparliamentary language and that it should be withdrawn. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Mr Speaker: Members can shout as loudly or for as long as they like, but it will make no difference. I am simply saying that on the advice that I have taken, nothing disorderly has occurred. [ Interruption. ] Order, Mr Brennan. I simply ask the Secretary of State to continue with his case.
	I appeal to Members to exercise restraint in the frequency—[ Interruption. ] Order. Members must exercise restraint in the frequency with which they intervene for the debate to continue in an orderly way and for there to be a reasonable opportunity for Members from both sides of the House to contribute.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As in this debate it may be orderly to accuse my right hon. Friend of being a liar, would it be orderly to accuse Opposition Front Benchers of being the most sanctimonious, hypocritical humbugs in recent political memory?

Mr Speaker: The answer is no, it would not be legitimate to make such a charge against an individual Member who was not the subject of the motion under debate in the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda has said what he has said. I have explained why it may not be proper for him to say it. I know that, being as well behaved as he is, he will not persist.

Jeremy Hunt: With great respect to your office, Mr Speaker, I think that there is a huge difference between misleading Parliament inadvertently and lying.

Mr Speaker: Order. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s respect, but let me say to him explicitly and for the avoidance of doubt what I have just said. There is a motion. That motion is being debated. He will make his case, and I look forward to him continuing to do so. I will be the arbiter of order, and I know that he will leave that to me.

Jeremy Hunt: It is because I wish to make my case that I want to draw the House’s attention to the very important distinction between inadvertently misleading this House and lying. Lying implies that there is deliberate intent. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has made great play in the press of how he has suffered when inaccurate allegations about him have been bandied about in the press, would, I am sure, not want to associate himself with the comment he has made unless he has any evidence. I am happy to give way to him now if he will show me evidence of any occasion when I have misled Parliament deliberately.

Chris Bryant: Mr Speaker, I very much hope that I will manage to catch your eye later in the debate. I hope that the Secretary of State will stay because I have a great deal of evidence to prove that he has lied to Parliament. That will be the subject not of a point of information now, but of a whole speech.

Jeremy Hunt: This point is very pertinent, because I am here to respond to any allegations that the hon. Gentleman might make. If he is not prepared to come forward with evidence that I deliberately misled the House, I will have to assume that he does not have such evidence.

Fiona O'Donnell: Perhaps I can give the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer one of the allegations. He told me that he had made no attempt to intervene while the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was dealing with this matter. Will he tell me, therefore, what the purpose was of his memo to the Prime Minister, if not to influence the outcome?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me help the hon. Lady by telling her about the Enterprise Act 2002, which was passed by the Labour Government and which says—

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Jeremy Hunt: Would Members like me to answer the question?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Jeremy Hunt: Good. The 2002 Act states that the responsibility for a quasi-judicial decision is that of the Business Secretary. The note that I sent to the Prime Minister made it very clear that I did not believe that it would be appropriate to make any intervention in a quasi-judicial decision, and that I would not seek to do so. That is what the note states. Members can select parts of the note and try to misrepresent them, but what I said was very clear and the Prime Minister read it out earlier at Prime Minister’s questions. I made no intervention seeking to influence the Business Secretary’s quasi-judicial decision.

John Denham: rose —

Jeremy Hunt: I will make a little progress, then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
	The second allegation is over ministerial responsibility for my special adviser, as set out in paragraph 3.3 of the ministerial code. Adam Smith, my former special adviser, is someone of the highest integrity—[ Interruption. ] He is. However, he did engage in some contact with News Corporation that was inappropriate and he has resigned. Lessons will be learned about how to improve processes and to avoid that happening again. I did not know about or authorise—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jeremy Hunt: If hon. Members will let me make my case, I can perhaps answer some of their questions.
	I did not know about or authorise that contact, but in accordance with the ministerial code, I accepted full responsibility for it by making a statement to the House the day after the contact became apparent.

Helen Jones: May I take the Secretary of State back to what he said a little earlier? He said that he was making no attempt to influence the quasi-judicial process because the Business Secretary was responsible for it at the time. However, his memo suggested a meeting with the Business Secretary. In what sense was that not an attempt to influence the process?

Jeremy Hunt: The memo, if the hon. Lady has read it, said that we should have a meeting that should not intrude on the quasi-judicial decision that the Business Secretary had to make. Something very significant, which she is forgetting about, is that no meeting happened. [ Interruption . ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must not shout at the Secretary of State. [ Interruption. ] Order. The House needs to calm down. The Secretary of State is entitled to make his case in the way that the shadow Secretary of State made hers.

Jeremy Hunt: I want to address the second allegation, which relates to my responsibility for the actions of my special adviser. I took responsibility for those actions in my statement.
	The question that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham has failed to answer is why it is a breach of the ministerial code when a Conservative special adviser behaves inappropriately, but not when a Labour special adviser does. Why is she calling for my resignation, when she did not call for that of the last Labour Prime Minister following the actions of Damian McBride or Charlie Whelan? Her inability to answer that question betrays her motives as being not about ministerial conduct, but about rank political opportunism. It may be that she holds Conservative Ministers to a higher standard of conduct than Labour Ministers because she believes that Conservative Ministers behave better than Labour Ministers. In that case, I would agree with her. I gently remind her that her position is not entirely consistent.

John Denham: Like the Secretary of State, I was responsible for appointing a number of special advisers who worked for me. It is inconceivable to me that any one of my special advisers could have maintained contact of this volume with a major stakeholder without me, as the Secretary of State, being aware of it. How on earth can he explain his apparent case that he knew nothing about what was going on?

Jeremy Hunt: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would explain why it is a breach of the code when a Conservative special adviser behaves inappropriately, but not when a Labour special adviser does, but he did not.
	I want to get on to the substance of what the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham said. Parliament rightly holds Ministers to account, and I strongly defend the right of this House to do so. Since my answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in September, as a result of our gathering evidence for the Leveson inquiry, more than 2,000 pages of paperwork relating to the BSkyB bid have been assembled and placed in the House Library. That shows that time after time I sought to supply the House with as much information as possible, far beyond what was required by the Enterprise Act 2002, and probably far more than for any previous deal. It shows that I not only followed legal advice but went beyond it, seeking and publishing independent and expert advice about every key decision—an approach that was confirmed by nearly six hours of testimony under oath from myself and others, including my permanent secretary, who said that I had deliberately reduced my own room to manipulate the process to vanishing point.
	Indeed, the evidence shows that the real story of this bid was insistence by me at several key stages on decisions that News Corp did not consider to be in its interests—the involvement of independent regulators; the stopping of James Murdoch being chairman of the spun-off Sky News; the refusal to rush the process; the decision to consult not once but twice. This was not an easy process, nor was it ever likely to command popular support, but the decisions were taken fairly and my Department deserves enormous credit as a result.

Tony Baldry: This was clearly a very controversial issue, and I imagine that competitors of Murdoch and News International would have been watching hawk-like to see whether there was any opportunity of taking the Secretary of State to judicial review. At any point during the process, did anyone indicate that they wished to take the Secretary of State to judicial review on the procedures and process that he used?

Jeremy Hunt: They did not, and that itself indicates the robustness with which we approached the decision.

Andrew Gwynne: Adam Smith told Leveson, “Jeremy told me, ‘You have done nothing wrong. You are just doing your job.’” How is that consistent with what the Secretary of State has told the House?

Jeremy Hunt: I do believe that Adam Smith did some inappropriate things, and he has paid a heavy price for that. He used inappropriate language, but I do not believe that anything he did had any material impact on the impartiality of the decisions that I made.

Andrew Selous: I had the privilege of working alongside the Secretary of State in the same shadow ministerial team in the last Parliament, and I regard him as a man of the highest integrity and decency. I am reassured by the fact that he took independent advice at every stage of the procedure, even when he was not required to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jeremy Hunt: I will take one last intervention, from the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), then I am going to make some progress.

Dave Watts: Let us be absolutely clear about what the Secretary of State seems to be saying. He is saying that he did not know what went on with the actions of his special adviser. Is he trying to tell the House that he is so incompetent that he did not know what his special adviser was doing?

Jeremy Hunt: No, I am saying that we knew that he had a role as one of a number of official points of contact in the process, and we knew that he was in contact with News Corporation, but we did not know about the volume and tone of that correspondence.
	If I may say so, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham was brave to call an Opposition day debate on the topic of accuracy, because in the past few weeks that has not been her strong point. Let us look at a few of the things that she has said, and we will see who has been the more accurate. First, on 25 April, she said that I was not judging the bid but backing it—quite a big claim, for which we would think she had some evidence. But she was wrong, because as she knows perfectly well, in every case I followed advice from one, and sometimes two, independent regulators. Were they biased as well? Of course not, and nor was I in following their advice.
	The right hon. and learned Lady’s next claim was that I went against Ofcom’s advice by not referring the bid to the Competition Commission. Wrong again. As she should now know, if she has read the evidence that she brandished, my first decision was to refer to the bid to the Competition Commission, but I then had a legal obligation to send News Corp a letter saying that I was minded to refer it, and then to consider undertakings offered in lieu of a referral. Had I not done that, I would have been going against legal advice. Her party wrote the Enterprise Act 2002, so she must be the first politician to call on someone to resign for following the law that her party itself wrote into statute.
	Then there was the claim that I used my special adviser as a secret back channel throughout the bid. Wrong yet again. As the right hon. and learned Lady knows perfectly well, my special adviser was one of many official points of contact, which my permanent secretary was aware of and content with. Then she wanted to claim that I somehow authorised my special adviser’s behaviour when it was inappropriate. Unfortunately for her, after I released texts and e-mails between me and him, the evidence showed that she was wrong. Finally, there was the very serious claim that I misled Parliament, which I have dealt with.
	Why has virtually every claim that the right hon. and learned Lady made been proved wrong? Because she did not even read the evidence before making her judgment.

Tom Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: No, I am going to make progress.
	In fact, the right hon. and learned Lady called on me to resign just 23 minutes after the evidence was published. That was despite saying on the Marr show that she wanted to work on a cross-party basis. When it came down to it, the temptation to get a political scalp was just too strong, and brazen opportunism took the place of responsible politics. To try to dress up partisan advantage as concern for the rights of this House will disappoint many and fool none, and she should know better. Some may say that she has proved herself to be little better than the newspapers that she has so criticised.
	I have spent six weeks being accountable for my actions and being proved right. The right hon. and learned Lady has spent six weeks cooking up allegations and being proved wrong. The Culture Secretary must be accountable to this House, but so too must she.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) is an elder statesman in the House and should behave with the restraint expected of somebody who enjoys that soubriquet.
	There is a lot of interest in the debate and several Members wish to be called. I hope it will be understood that there has to be a time limit. I wanted to see how much time was left before setting it. There will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.

Ian Lucas: Justice must not only be done, but must manifestly be seen to be done—Lord Justice Hewart’s pronouncement is fundamental. It applies to our courts, and it should apply to Ministers acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. The integrity of a Minister’s decision-making process depends substantially on that process being accepted by those who observe it. That is especially so when the decision is one with a high public profile, and few processes have a higher public profile than this process has had.
	Out there, people are saying to me that the Secretary of State has no credibility considering the integrity of the process that he followed. We know that he was in favour of the News International bid, and that from the outset he made proposals supporting its acquiring BSkyB. We have heard today, and he has confirmed from the Dispatch Box, that he was making representations to the Prime Minister to meet the Business Secretary. Will he intervene on me to say that he did not make such a representation? The reason he is not coming to the Dispatch Box to intervene is that he knows that he made that representation—a memo to the Prime Minister asking to meet the Business Secretary, which he should not have done. That was his evidence to the Leveson inquiry.

Alun Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lucas: I will not give way at this point.
	We know what the Secretary of State’s views were at the outset, and we know that the facts disclose that he is not an impartial Culture Secretary. We also know that he does not support the people who worked with him in carrying out his ministerial role. We know that he nominated Adam Smith to manage the relationship with News International. He did not, on the other hand, appoint anyone to manage the relationship with people opposed to the proposal, and the level of contact with opponents of the proposal was in no measure anywhere near that with News International.

Therese Coffey: This was a takeover, not an open share contest. There was no reason for the Secretary of State necessarily to have the same amount of regular contact through his special adviser from the person trying to make the takeover. It just does not happen that way. The hon. Gentleman should know that, as a business lawyer.

Ian Lucas: I am surprised that the hon. Lady, who is familiar with this matter, supports the fact that there was such huge contact between a special adviser appointed by the Secretary of State and the proponent of the bid. That was not appropriate and did not lead to the perception that the process was fair and impartial.

Kevin Brennan: Is it not telling that the Secretary of State chose to involve a political appointment—a special adviser, who carries out a solely political function—in a quasi-judicial decision? I did a similar job in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which involved judging on competition policy. It is unthinkable that a political adviser would be called in unless there were political motives.

Ian Lucas: I, too, was a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I have no recollection or knowledge of a special adviser behaving in that way. I suggest that the special adviser was appointed because the Secretary of State had an agenda to take forward the bid and ensure it went through. The right hon. Gentleman’s conduct after he was given the quasi-judicial role—when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had it taken away from him—was designed to present himself as acting fairly, but everyone knows that his agenda was to get the bid through. It is in his texts and actions. All has been revealed.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is not seen as independent and did not act impartially in the process. He will not be trusted in future to act impartially in any decisions he makes. He therefore should not be in office. He has no credibility. If he goes away from the Chamber and thinks about what has happened in the past hour, he will recognise that. If he has any dignity, when he looks at himself in his shaving mirror he will accept that he should not be in post.
	As the Leader of the Opposition said today, it is not the Secretary of State who is on trial, but the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has undermined the independent adviser on ministerial interests by his conduct. We heard a classic example of that today. Purely for partisan political purposes, the Prime Minister wrote to Sir Alex Allan, and received a response the same day—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	It was orchestrated—no doubt there was communication between the independent adviser’s office and the Prime Minister’s office.
	The Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the letter exonerated the Secretary of State, which is not true. The letter says that an investigation would take the matter no further so far as the facts were concerned, but that is not the job of the independent adviser. His job is to make a judgment based on the facts presented to him, which, the letter goes on to say, he is willing to do.

Paul Flynn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Public Administration Committee unanimously decided that Sir Alex Allan was not fit for the job after merely a pre-appointment hearing? We asked him what he would do if the Prime Minister behaved in this way, and he said he would relinquish his post. Has he not proved that he is a poodle, and not the rottweiler that should be doing that job?

Ian Lucas: I was aware of that—indeed, I was coming to the Committee’s report, which questions the independence of Sir Alex Allan. I have had no previous dealings with him, but the partisan use of his office by the Prime Minister—this morning and at the Dispatch Box as a shield at Question Time—undermines him.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Ian Lucas: I would ask Sir Alex to look at whether the Prime Minister’s behaviour calls into question his independence and whether he can continue to be seen to be acting independently.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way at the moment. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) need not be worried. He is very visible—the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has seen him and may give way in due course. He can have another go in a moment, exercising the usual restraint and good judgment that he demonstrates on these occasions.

Ian Lucas: The Prime Minister used Sir Alex Allan at the Dispatch Box for political advantage. He has used Baroness Warsi for political advantage by referring her to the independent adviser. He is using his colleagues to defend his position. We saw his behaviour again today, when he insulted my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). It is a disgrace that Conservative Members support such contemptible behaviour by the Prime Minister—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of references to the Prime Minister, which I took to be in passing, but the conduct of the Prime Minister is not the subject of debate—[ Interruption .] Order. There is not a substantive motion on that matter, so I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will re-orientate his remarks to matters that fall within the terms of the motion.

Ian Lucas: The subject of the debate is the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. He knows he does not have the confidence of the country or the Chamber. He cannot carry out his important role. He is not impartial, he is not perceived to be impartial, and he should go.

John Whittingdale: It is not that long since I spoke in the Chamber on the subject of individuals misleading Parliament, so I am in no doubt about the seriousness of that charge. I do not question the right of the Opposition to table the motion, but I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and commend him for the way in which he has responded to each individual accusation and for his conduct over the past few months, which cannot have been easy.
	Some have suggested that the Secretary of State should not have had a view about the bid by News Corp to acquire all of BSkyB, but one of his first responsibilities is to be the sponsoring Minister for the media industry of this country. It would have been utterly extraordinary if he did not have a view. BSkyB is one of the most important media companies in the country and plays a vital part in the future of the media: of course he would have a view about it.
	Not only was the Secretary of State entitled to have a view, but I believe he held the correct view. Had the bid gone through, it would have had good implications for the survival of newspapers in this country. He was not responsible for that matter at the time; it was a quasi-judicial matter for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I understand the argument the hon. Gentleman makes. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport should have a view, but was he not put in a difficult position by the Prime Minister when the problem with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills occurred? Was he not an inappropriate and wrong person to put in charge of that process?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was put in a difficult position because he was given responsibility after expressing a view, but I do not agree that he was the wrong person to be given that responsibility. This was such an important matter that almost anybody given the responsibility would have had a view. The important thing is that, having been given the responsibility, he put aside his view and judged the matter clearly and solely on the advice he received. That was precisely what he did.

Alun Cairns: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the letter from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister was made available to the permanent secretary and the Cabinet Secretary when they advised the Prime Minister on whether the Secretary of State could take responsibility?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been made clear that the decision to pass responsibility to my right hon. Friend was made after he had indicated that he was on record expressing a view on the merits of the bid before he was given that responsibility.

John Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something for me? When the Cabinet Secretary took the view on the suitability of the Secretary of State, had the Cabinet Secretary been made aware of the memo from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister proposing a joint meeting with the Business Secretary on this
	matter? It would be surprising if he had not been told that by either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister.

John Whittingdale: I am not in a position to know that but it is a question that the right hon. Gentleman can perfectly fairly put to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary. I want at the end of my speech to say what might happen next, if there are still some questions.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On that matter, would it be in order for the Secretary of State to intervene and clarify the issue that has just been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order. It is up to the Secretary of State to do that if he wishes and John Whittingdale has the floor.

John Whittingdale: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Once responsibility was passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he followed the advice that was given at every stage. Had the bid gone through as a result of his following the advice he was given, BSkyB would now have been subject to stronger safeguards against political interference than it is thanks to the fact that the bid did not go through.

Fiona O'Donnell: What does the hon. Gentleman think about his coalition partners’ decision not to go through the Lobby with his party tonight? If the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made such a convincing case, why can they not even convince their coalition partners?

John Whittingdale: I shall be disappointed if our coalition partners do not support the Government on this occasion. I hope that having heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State they might still do so later.
	I want to make one or two comments about possible lessons from this affair that we should perhaps consider in the future, the first of which concerns the role of special advisers. I, too, was once a special adviser in the Department of Trade and Industry at a time of Conservative government in the late ’80s. I was a political adviser and I did not participate in discussions about competition policy as it was felt that political advisers were there to provide political input and it could not be clear what political input would be legitimate in a competition case. The role of special advisers has changed over the past 10 or 15 years and I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that it was the previous Labour Government who changed the role of special advisers and gave them far more influence and power than they previously had. We need to reconsider that.

Paul Flynn: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that three former special advisers to this Government gave evidence to a Select Committee of this House yesterday. They were asked whether it would have been possible for them to communicate with lobbyists in a Minister’s office. They all treated with derision the suggestion that a special adviser could communicate 500 times with an outside body without the knowledge of the Minister.

John Whittingdale: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure that political advisers to the previous Government are likely to have given the most objective evidence commenting on the performance of the Secretary of State.
	I believe that there is a serious concern about the role that special advisers undertake, and perhaps that could be considered further. The other matter that perhaps deserves some consideration is the fact that the Secretary of State has advanced an interesting argument that in order to take issues such as News Corp’s BSkyB bid out of the political arena, they should be given to Ofcom and the Competition Commission to consider without the involvement of politicians. There are pros and cons, but I certainly understand the argument. Perhaps the same applies in this instance. I do not think the debate is assisting the process, and the question of whether a Minister’s conduct is in breach of the ministerial code and merits investigation should perhaps be a matter for the adviser to decide. Perhaps there is a case for the independent adviser to be given that power, but I hope that will be considered further. I know that the Public Administration Committee is also considering the matter. Perhaps that should be one of the matters to come out of this debate for the future.
	Finally, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham wrote to me a few weeks ago to ask whether the Select Committee would look into this matter. It has been very thoroughly considered by Lord Justice Leveson, who was able to obtain information and question witnesses under oath using a QC, which the independent adviser certainly would not have been able to do and the Select Committee might not have been able to do. However, if questions remain at the end of this I hope that the Secretary of State will appear before the Select Committee, as he does every year to answer and account for his performance as Secretary of State responsible for his Department. I have no doubt that my colleagues from both the Opposition Benches and the Government Benches will take the opportunity, if they have questions, to ask him them at that time. That is an appropriate mechanism by which Parliament holds not just this Secretary of State but all Ministers to account.

Paul Flynn: It is not just one Minister who is being accused here, and not just the Government. The whole of politics is on trial. When the Prime Minister came to office, he came in with fine words about how the Government intended to be
	“Transparent about what we do and how we do it. Determined to act in the national interest, above improper influence. Mindful of our duty. Above all, grateful for our chance to change our country.”
	He has changed the country, but not for the better.
	The ministerial code was introduced in its current form in 2007. There was one case serious enough to demand investigation, involving Shahid Malik, and that investigation took place. I remember no call for an investigation into the case that has been cited involving a number of e-mails that were certainly improper. There was no investigation into the case of the former Defence Secretary. That matter was of enormous seriousness, because he had a man who was paid by groups in other countries and he was not investigated.

Adam Holloway: The hon. Gentleman talks about “enormous seriousness”. I do not know what the public make of this, but we are voting on a matter to do with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is extremely honourable. This House has never voted on the insane levels of immigration or the death of our troops in Afghanistan. This is bonkers; it is student politics.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is an Opposition day and it is not up to the hon. Gentleman or the House to decide the subject of the debate. It is up to the Opposition and the debate is on the Secretary of State.

Paul Flynn: A person who thought that the former Defence Secretary should have been referred to the independent adviser was Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser himself. He resigned because of that.

Gavin Barwell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have just made the point that the motion is about the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to a completely different subject.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will decide what is in order and what is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice and I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is developing his points in order to come on to that subject.

Paul Flynn: The point is the ministerial code and how it has been degraded by this Government and this Prime Minister. In the last Parliament and in this Parliament, the Public Administration Committee has thought that there should be an independent adviser who has the right to decide what he wants to investigate. If the Prime Minister is alleged to have broken the ministerial code, who will advise the independent adviser to investigate him? That advice is a function of the Public Administration Committee. There was no investigation of a far less serious complaint about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who failed to register an interest when he had a meal provided by a lobbyist on the excuse that that day he was eating with his private stomach, not his ministerial stomach. That was a matter for the ministerial code as it was a clear breach. The matter before us is the third breach that has taken place.
	We should consider our position. We have just escaped from the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Our standing in the country is no higher than it was two years ago and if the Prime Minister continues to ignore a major reform—which the ministerial code was—and use it to defend his own political position, we will sink further into the perception of sleaze as seen by the country.

Stewart Jackson: The noxious stink of hypocrisy holds sway in this debate. It is unbelievable that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can compare an honest, genuine lapse of judgment by the special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the systematic, malicious and vindictive character assassination by Damian McBride on the family of the
	Chancellor, the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), for which the former Prime Minister was never called on to resign.

Paul Flynn: I challenge anyone on the Government Benches to cite any example of anyone claiming that that incident should have been referred under the ministerial code. I have been interested in these matters for a good decade and there was no such claim. There was a case, and it was investigated. The ministerial code was used by the previous Labour Government. It has been abused three times by this Government when strong cases have come up.
	We have another reform that has not been implemented by the Government. The Prime Minister made an impassioned plea on lobbying, saying that he was going to have a new lobbying code—because, as a former lobbyist, he understood it. We do not yet have a code. The one that has been put forward is lame and weak, and it would actually weaken the system. The Government have failed in their prime task—and the prime task of all us—which is to escape from the shame of the last two years, for which all of us were responsible. Many Members left the House, with their careers in ruins, and some suffered greatly, including many who were not guilty—collateral damage. I have just concluded a biography of one former Member who lost his life because of the effect of that scandal on his health.
	The shame still lies on this House. The perception outside is that politics is debased and that we do not tell the truth or obey a moral code. I appeal to all Members not to see this as one of the usual tribal votes when we go into the Lobbies—[ Interruption. ] I cite the contributions that I made on the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament and the last, when I was as severe a critic of my own Government as I am of the excesses of this Government. This is a matter of honour for hon. Members here today.
	I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their position. This is not a question of winning a vote tonight—that does not matter. But it matters whether we stand up for the House of Commons reforms and whether we respect the reforms that have taken place. The ministerial code has been abused. Sir Alex Allan was put in place. The Committee examined him and questioned him, and unanimously—with a Conservative majority on the Committee—said that this man is not fit for this office. We communicated that to the Government and nothing was done. Elizabeth Filkin was regarded as a strong Rottweiler, and she was replaced by Sir Philip Mawer, who was regarded as not so strong, but he resigned because he was not called in to investigate what took place with Adam Werritty, which was a matter of great importance. Adam Werritty called himself an adviser, but he was paid by people outside and attended a ministerial meeting. What happened was absolution by resignation. He was allowed to resign before the country knew the full facts of what went on. What possibly happened was that his advice—his seat at the table—might have brought us closer to a war with Iran. I appeal to all hon. Members to treat this matter seriously—[ Interruption. ] If Members are not aware of this, it is because the investigation was carried out by Gus O’Donnell to get it over in a few days rather than having a full, legitimate investigation. That investigation was itself a breach of the ministerial code.
	If we are to increase respect for ourselves in society, we have to subject every Minister to examination by someone who is genuinely independent. If the Prime Minister breaks the ministerial code, we need an independent investigator to decide, of his own volition, whether to investigate. Now we have a poodle who has been instructed by the Prime Minister—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are discussing the Secretary of State, but we are in danger of concentrating on former or present Prime Ministers. I know that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—constructing an argument, but we need to get to the Secretary of State.

Paul Flynn: rose—

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is calling a right hon. Member a poodle parliamentary language?

Lindsay Hoyle: It was not a named Member, but we should be careful with language because we are in danger of reheating the Chamber, and that is what we do not wish to do—because we all want to hear each other’s speeches.

Paul Flynn: I apologise to the harmless and beautiful dogs to which I referred for any offence caused by their association with the people involved.
	Yesterday, three former special advisers to Conservative Ministers were asked whether it would have been possible, in their posts as special advisers, to communicate 500 times with anybody without their Minister knowing. They laughed. The Secretary of State’s excuse is implausible and no one can believe that what went on happened without the Minister’s consent or knowledge. This is where he falls. The Conservatives have forgotten the lesson of the Mellor scandal: a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied. The Minister will regret the fact that he did not resign and that he did not submit his own case to the independent adviser for examination. Hanging on in this way will not help his career. He has erred and he should go.

Don Foster: Several months ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it absolutely clear, for reasons of transparency and public confidence, that if—following the appearance at Leveson by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—questions remained to be answered, those questions should be thoroughly and adequately investigated. We believe that questions do remain to be thoroughly investigated, but let me be very clear about those questions.
	The Liberal Democrats are clear that the way in which the Secretary of State handled the BSkyB bid, notwithstanding his known support for News Corporation and News International, was done absolutely by the book. Throughout, the Secretary of State, notwithstanding his own views on the matter, sought independent advice when he did not have to do so from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading, and he followed that advice. The one thing that has rarely been mentioned in this Chamber and outside is what decision the Secretary of State ultimately took. That decision was not in the interests
	of News Corporation because it denied it the level of involvement in Sky News that it then had and actually reduced its plurality position in news and current affairs. We therefore have no questions about how the Secretary of State handled that matter.

Karl Turner: Given the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Secretary of State, I wonder why he will not be supporting him in the Lobby.

Don Foster: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to elaborate, I shall answer that very question.
	Nevertheless, as I said a few seconds ago, I believe, and the Deputy Prime Minister believes, that there are questions, in particular about the ministerial code, that deserve thorough, independent investigation. We believe, as does the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, that there is an urgent need to review the current procedure. It is probably inappropriate for the Prime Minister alone to be the sole judge of whether an independent investigation should take place. We believe it ought to be possible either for the special adviser to make the decision himself, or for it to be made on the advice of a senior civil servant or the Public Administration Committee. However, this decision was taken under the current rules by the Prime Minister against the advice offered by the Deputy Prime Minister and without consultation with him. It is therefore one that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Liberal Democrats can endorse.

Greg Mulholland: Considering that the so-called independent adviser on ministerial interests was actually a wheeze set up by a previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to get out of a pickle, will my right hon. Friend ask the Labour Front-Bench team whether they would reform the system, which clearly is not fit for purpose?

Don Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am sure that the Opposition will have an opportunity to respond to it. We are clear, however, that reforms are necessary.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Don Foster: I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has featured so prominently in this issue.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman earlier praised the process that the Secretary of State adopted in taking forward the bid. Has he read the memo that the Culture Secretary sent to the Prime Minister before he was in charge of the bid which makes it absolutely clear that what he intended and hoped to achieve was, surprisingly, exactly the same as what he actually achieved—in other words, the best possible outcome, in law, for Sky?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman has followed this issue assiduously, but on this occasion he has got his facts wrong. We must remember that there had been no discussion about mitigations in lieu or about reducing the BSkyB bid involvement of News Corporation—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Bryant, you hope to catch my eye, and I was thinking of calling you next. I am sure that you will want to share all your information with the House then, rather than wasting it on interventions.

Don Foster: We and the Deputy Prime Minister are clear that questions need to be answered. It would have been better had the matter been addressed by the independent adviser, but that is not the system we currently have, which is the system that we would like to change. I want to make it clear, however, that this is not, as some have suggested, an issue of collective responsibility. There was not a collective decision on this. It is not part of the coalition agreement but was a decision taken solely by the Prime Minister, and in no way will our vote, or absence of votes tonight, preclude us from continuing to work with our coalition partners on the issues agreed in the coalition agreement and in sorting out the economic mess in which the previous Government have left us.

Eleanor Laing: rose —

Don Foster: I give way to my hon. Friend and colleague in the coalition.

Eleanor Laing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had not acted irresponsibly and unprofessionally in the first place, thus losing the right to make this important decision, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who was previously unprepared to take such a decision, would not have been put in this difficult position?

Don Foster: The hon. Lady makes a factually correct point: if the Business Secretary had not had the responsibility removed from him, it would not have gone to my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary.
	I also want to make it absolutely clear why the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to go into the Lobby with the Labour party today. The House is well aware that this is not a decision for the House; it is a decision for the Prime Minister, and he has made his decision. This is, therefore, a political ruse by the Labour party, whose behaviour on these issues is frankly appalling. For example, paragraph 9.3 of the ministerial code states:
	“Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess.”
	On Tuesday 22 July 2008—the day before the recess—no fewer than 30 ministerial announcements were made, 10 of which were from the then Prime Minister. One year later, following the appalling behaviour of Mr Damian McBride, no action was taken over the Prime Minister’s responsibility for his special adviser, who was forced to resign for his behaviour. Furthermore, the Labour party misled not only the House but the country over the war in Iraq, and has spent years trying to cosy up to the Murdochs. There is no way we will join Labour Members in the Lobby today.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State is a nice man. He is courteous; he is polite; that is not in doubt—but that is not the matter in hand today. It is
	also perfectly understandable that on certain occasions the House is misled. It is not uncommon for a Minister to say something in the honest belief that what he is saying is true, and for it to turn out not to be true—a distinction that he himself made. That is why there is a means of correcting the record. I did that myself quite recently. I believe that the House sees no dishonour in correcting the record—indeed, quite the reverse: it enhances somebody’s reputation.
	The issue, therefore, is the deliberate misleading of Parliament and the requirement, in the words of the code,
	“that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
	Evidence of not complying with the code can be drawn from the fact that the misinformation provided was emphatic rather than tentative, was repeated, was not corrected when fuller information was available or was calculated to deceive for political advantage. I believe that there is prima facie evidence that all these things apply to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport.
	Some facts are not in dispute. First, the Secretary of State was a strong supporter of Sky in general and the bid in particular. Indeed, he wrote to tell the Prime Minister so, he texted James Murdoch so on the very day he was given control of the bid, and he told me so in September 2010. Secondly, James Murdoch knew what the Secretary of State was going to say before Parliament did. Thirdly, Fred Michel is not a clairvoyant; he was given privileged information directly by Adam Smith, the special adviser to the Secretary of State, quite possibly breaking the law. This was not just on one occasion; it was repeated time and again—hundreds of texts, dozens of e-mails and who knows how many phone calls of which we have not yet been informed.
	Fourthly, the Secretary of State doubts that
	“there’s a minister who worked more closely with a special adviser than I worked with Adam Smith”—
	closer than DEFRA special adviser Osborne worked with Douglas Hogg and closer than Treasury special adviser Cameron worked with Norman Lamont. Yet the Secretary of State expects us to believe that he had no idea what his special adviser was up to; no idea that he was colluding with Sky in a way that would have led to an expensive judicial review, which the taxpayer would have had to pay for if the bid had not been scuppered by the phone-hacking revelations. He has been hanging out with News International so much that he even expects us to accept the “one rogue reporter” defence that News International deployed, long after it knew that it was a lie in relation to hacking.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me just correct the hon. Gentleman. It is standard practice for my Department, and indeed other Departments, to let companies know if there is a statement being made in Parliament about them in advance of that statement being made, and that is exactly what Adam Smith was doing, and it was proper that he should do so—I believe in every situation, but we are still looking through the evidence very carefully. Secondly, if, as the hon. Gentleman says, I had a plan—some grand scheme—that was going to deliver BSkyB to News Corp, why would I say that I was going to ask for the opinion of independent regulators, whose advice I have absolutely no control over, and that I was going to
	publish it at the same time as I published my decision? The reason I did that was because I was setting aside the views I had prior to the bid taking place, and that has been vindicated by every single page of the evidence.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, but I simply do not believe the Secretary of State, because I believe that he secured precisely the outcome that he wanted to achieve—or that he wanted the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to achieve—and that is exactly what he put in the memo to the Prime Minister before he took over the bid. Secondly, in relation to providing information, what is key about—

Jeremy Hunt: rose —

Chris Bryant: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a moment and just let me finish—[ Interruption. ] If the Whip could just calm down—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us get back to a sensible debate and let us have a little more courtesy from the Front Benches on both sides.

Chris Bryant: I will give way again to the Secretary of State in a moment, but I just want to answer the point about providing information to Sky before it was available to this House. Yes, there are certain circumstances where that option is available to a Secretary of State, but not normally before the markets have opened, not when it can be used for commercial advantage for that organisation and not when people on the other side of the bid have been treated in a completely different way. That is why I think the Financial Services Authority may still want to investigate.

Jeremy Hunt: I just want to understand: is the hon. Gentleman actually saying that the independent advice that I received from Ofcom and the OFT was not, in fact, independent? If I ask for independent advice, what that means is that I do not know what it is going to say. Unless I have very good reason, I am likely to follow that advice. That could not possibly be the actions of someone who was trying to achieve a specific outcome.

Chris Bryant: I am afraid that the issue is the way in which the back channel was organised through the Secretary of State’s special adviser, Adam Smith, of whom the right hon. Gentleman has said there has never been a closer working relationship between a Minister and a special adviser—and we are meant to believe that the information this person was providing to Sky was not material—and the process whereby all the e-mails that were provided made it absolutely clear what was in the Secretary of State’s mind and how he was trying to secure that outcome.
	That brings me to the central charges: first, that the Secretary of State deliberately misled Parliament. He told Parliament in March 2011 that he had published
	“all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
	That was a very, very emphatic statement, which clearly had not been verified, because then, on 7 September, he tried to backtrack a bit—or cover his tracks. In a
	written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), the Secretary of State said:
	“A search for correspondence from officials, press officers and special advisers to and from all the individuals listed would incur disproportionate cost to collect.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 616.]
	He did not choose to correct the previous statement. He chose not to reveal that he had texted James Murdoch himself and had sent a memo to the Prime Minister. Far from exonerating the Secretary of State, the answer he provided on 7 September proves beyond doubt that he deliberately failed to tell the whole truth to this House. It was only the legal powers vested in Leveson that forced the truth out into the open.

Kevin Brennan: On that point, is it not a further requirement of the ministerial code that the Secretary of State should be as open as possible with Parliament? His conduct in this matter, and in the instance that my hon. Friend has mentioned, is clearly an example of his not being as open as possible with Parliament.

Chris Bryant: This House has regularly excoriated Ministers when they have resorted too swiftly to the argument that it is too expensive to provide the full information, but to be honest, I cannot see how it could have been too expensive to have found the memo that the Secretary of State wrote to the Prime Minister—or, for that matter, the text messages that the Secretary of State sent to the people concerned.
	There are some other facts to be dealt with. The deliberate nature of the misinformation is also evidenced by the Secretary of State’s response, following his statement in April this year, to questions from two Back Benchers—both doubtless inspired directly by the Whips, as was the question posed earlier by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). When one Back Bencher—helped, I am sure—asked him how many conversations he had had, meaning how many with News International and News Corporation, the Secretary of State said, quite categorically and emphatically, “zero”. When another Back Bencher—a Conservative Member; this did not come out of the blue—asked whether the Secretary of State recognised the conversations attributed to him by Fred Michel, he said:
	“I do not. Throughout the bid process, when I got responsibility for it, the contact that I had with Fred Michel was only at official meetings that were minuted with other people present. The fact is that there is a whole pile of e-mails—54 in total—in which he talks about having contact with me, but that simply did not happen.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 961, c. 543.]
	Neither response was unpremeditated; they were deliberately placed on the record. Both are deliberate obfuscations and lies.

Jeremy Hunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, so let me just tell him that in both cases the question I was asked—one was from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and the other was from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—referred to the 54 e-mails that Fred Michel wrote in which he talked about conversations with “JH”. In both cases I confirmed that no such conversations with me had happened.

Chris Bryant: No, I am afraid that that is not the precise nature of the conversation, but I am short for time now. I am quite happy to correspond with the Secretary of State, but I believe that he misled and that he deliberately did so on those occasions.

Angie Bray: rose —

Chris Bryant: I am not going to give way further, because I have already given way on four occasions to the Secretary of State.
	The proof that those claims were untrue is that there was un-minuted contact when the Secretary of State had control of the bid—twice on 20 January 2011, once on 21 January, three times on 3 March, three times on 13 March and once on 3 July. He could have corrected the record, but without Rupert Murdoch, we would never have known about it. That is the honest truth of this matter.
	The Secretary of State has always protested that, once in charge of the bid, he operated impartially. Yet despite being directly advised on 10 November 2010 not to have any external discussions on the BSkyB media merger, he texted the Chancellor on the day that he acquired responsibility for the bid to say:
	“Just been called by James M. His lawyers are meeting now and saying it calls into question legitimacy of whole process from beginning.”
	It is absolutely clear that the Secretary of State had a conversation that he had been advised he should not have, precisely and in terms. He was colluding with News Corporation, and to deny it again today is yet another way of misleading the House.
	It has often been said by the Prime Minister that all these issues have been dealt with by Leveson, but the Leveson inquiry, because of article IX of the Bill of Rights, has absolutely no power; indeed, it is legally barred from questioning or impeaching any proceeding in Parliament. That is why not a single question was posed about any of these matters to the Secretary of State and why there has to be a reference to the independent adviser.
	I end with these few words:
	“this is a shabby, shabby business”.
	Not my words: the words of a full-time Murdoch employee and former Tory Member of Parliament, Matthew Parris.

Bernard Jenkin: The first thing I would say to the House about this debate is that it represents a failure of government and a failure of our politics. The exchanges that have just taken place between the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is showing extraordinary forbearance under immense pressure, demonstrate that this is not the forum, the place or the way to resolve these issues. It should never be necessary for such a motion to be tabled.
	Earlier this year, the Public Administration Committee, which I chair, again made the recommendation that would render motions such as this redundant. Our report, entitled “The Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests: independent or not?”, was published on 17 March, before the controversy about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arose.
	Our principal recommendation, as has already been advertised by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), is that the independent adviser should be empowered to instigate his own investigations. There is nothing radical about that. Our predecessor Committee made the same recommendation in the last Parliament, and I would say to my Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newport West, that although he might be tribal, and although he might be excoriating about this Government, he is completely consistent, because he was just as excoriating about the previous Government. Our predecessor Committee, on which he served, made the same recommendation.
	That is exactly how other regulators work, and it is how our own Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards operates. He would command little public confidence if he could not instigate his own investigations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended the same thing for the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests, on more than one occasion. The mystery is why these recommendations have not been implemented, and why the previous Labour Government did not accept them. The Opposition are now proposing this motion precisely because their Government refused to implement them.

Greg Mulholland: I am pleased to serve under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship on the Public Administration Committee. Does he agree that this would be a great opportunity for all three party leaders to commit to fulfilling our Committee’s recommendations, and to agreeing that the independent adviser—who is not currently independent—should clearly be able to instigate his own investigations? Does my hon. Friend believe that we could get such a commitment from all three party leaders today?

Bernard Jenkin: I would very much like that. This is not a difficult recommendation for the Government to accept. No legislation is required. The Prime Minister could simply accept it and implement it.
	We are still waiting for the Government’s response to our report. The previous Government declined to take up the recommendation, explaining that
	“it must ultimately be for the Prime Minister to account to Parliament for his decisions and actions in relation to the appointment of his Ministers”.
	So the Opposition have no one but themselves to blame for the fact that they have had to table this motion today.
	Why would it be desirable for the independent adviser to decide what to investigate without waiting for a referral from the Prime Minister? The expectation that that should be the case is generated by the official job title. It is hard to see how any adviser on Ministers’ interests can be deemed to be independent if he is unable to investigate prima facie breaches of the ministerial code without the permission of the Prime Minister. It is only his independence from Government that can provide the necessary assurance that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, will be held objectively and impartially to the standards of the ministerial code. If we deprive him of his independence by depriving him of his initiative, we remove the assurance that we want the public to have.
	Above all, it is surely beneficial for Prime Ministers to be absolved of the invidious duty of deciding whether or not to refer potential breaches to the independent adviser. With that responsibility comes a great deal of controversy and public opprobrium. A Prime Minister is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Either he condemns his colleague by referring him, placing him under immediate pressure to resign, or he condemns himself, because it looks as though he is protecting someone from proper scrutiny. I wonder whether, if the Prime Minister had referred this matter to the independent adviser immediately, the Secretary of State would already have been investigated for any breach of the ministerial code by now, and exonerated. This situation places the Secretary of State in an invidious position.

Damian Collins: I am following my hon. Friend’s argument carefully. Does he agree that the Opposition cannot have it both ways? They cannot spend weeks running around saying that Sir Alex Allan should investigate this matter, and then, when he says that he cannot add any more, say that he is not really independent and should not investigate the matter anyway.

Bernard Jenkin: I will come to that point. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Newport West describes Sir Alex Allan as a poodle. That is not what we said in our report, incidentally. We were concerned about the manner of his appointment, and about whether it was appropriate for a recently retired civil servant to take that role, because he would not be seen as independent. We did not say that he was not fit to fulfil the role.

Paul Flynn: May I recommend that the hon. Gentleman re-read the report, and especially the minority report that I wrote, which I commend to him for its literary qualities alone? The report that was agreed by the majority of the Committee stated that Sir Alex Allan
	“was unsuited to this role because he did not convince us that he would be able to demonstrate the independence the post requires.”
	In more vigorous language, that means that he is not a rottweiler but a poodle.

Bernard Jenkin: Those are the hon. Gentleman’s words, but the Committee went on to say:
	“In fairness, it is unlikely that many retiring civil servants will have had the opportunity to demonstrate the necessary independence from Government in their career to date.”
	I think that that places the right emphasis on the matter. If the role is to be seen to be independent, the manner of the appointment needs to be different and it would help to have someone who had demonstrated independence in their career to date.

Helen Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that an investigation should happen only if it is needed and merited?

Bernard Jenkin: That would be a matter for the independent adviser, not the Prime Minister, to decide.
	At the start of the present Parliament, the Committee resolved not to inquire into individual cases. Accordingly, we have made no judgment of any of the evidence on the conduct of the Secretary of State, which others in the House seem to have done. It is therefore not for me to say whether the Prime Minister should refer the Secretary of State to the independent adviser. It is
	highly unlikely that there are many right hon. or hon. Members who take a disinterested view of the evidence. Indeed, some of those named on the motion have already called for the Secretary of State’s resignation; they have already made up their minds. I put it to the House that this is effectively a vote of confidence in the Minister, rather than a decision of the House whether or not to refer.
	That is precisely why it should be for the independent adviser himself to decide whether to investigate. That would take the decision out of the political arena and place it firmly in the hands of a person who is impartial in these matters. That is the basis of everything I have said on this matter. I have never made a judgment about the merits or otherwise of the case in question.

Angie Bray: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bernard Jenkin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not.
	Now that Sir Alex Allan himself has said that the Leveson inquiry’s probing and taking evidence under oath means that he does not believe that he could usefully add to the facts in this case, I personally wonder why the Opposition are persisting with the motion.
	This does not absolve the Government from addressing many awkward questions. I have too many remarks for the time available, but they concern matters that the Government might not want to hear about, including the role and function of special advisers. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) that the Public Administration Committee had already embarked on an inquiry into this subject before the resignation of Adam Smith, which served only to intensify the debate about numbers of special advisers, about what they are really there for, about whether the new code of conduct for special advisers is effective, and about how special advisers should be held accountable for what they do, and to whom. Under the Blair Administration, the role of special advisers was changed. Happily, it has now changed back, but this has done something to change the terms of trade for special advisers in government, and Whitehall is still adapting to that change. Our inquiry is exploring that matter.
	There are further questions to which we still need answers. Whom did Adam Smith really believe he was serving in his role as go-between? Was it his Secretary of State, who is nominally responsible for the conduct of special advisers under the ministerial code? Or was it “the government as a whole”? That is a phrase I use advisedly, because the code was changed under the new Government, and all special advisers now serve “the government as a whole”. Has that phrase subtly changed the accountability of SpAds so that they are now no longer clear about to whom they are ultimately accountable?
	What is the role of the permanent secretary in the supervision of the conduct of a special adviser, who is, after all, still a civil servant? I would even go so far as to ask—perhaps controversially—whether the top of the civil service has lost some of the self-confidence and authority that in yesteryear might have seen a permanent secretary act more decisively in such a situation. I hope that we will never again see a special adviser fired from
	his job for doing what he believed to be the right thing, simply because he had been left in ignorance of the boundaries of conduct that he should have observed.

John Denham: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I think that his last remarks should be heard by the Secretary of State, who, at the very least, must conclude that there was a gross dereliction of duty in his failure to supervise and properly manage his special adviser on an issue that was not a minor matter for his Department but an £8 billion takeover at the centre of the media dominating our country. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State was able, as he claims, to allow his special adviser to operate in such a way without ever knowing what was going on. That alone should be cause for him to consider his position.
	Secondly, let us deal with this idea, compounded by the Prime Minister today, that Sir Alex Allan’s letter in any way vindicates the Prime Minister’s decision not to send this matter to the independent adviser. The question is not the facts, but the judgment that should be made on the facts. That can be done only by Sir Alex Allan. The case of Baroness Warsi has been referred to him, and the Prime Minister did not suggest today that there were any unknown facts in her case; he wanted the independent adviser’s view on her conduct. That is all Labour Members are asking for in this case—and not a single argument has been given for resisting it.
	Many of the facts are known, but I want to concentrate on the part that briefly involved me personally in the saga. As shadow Business Secretary, I was preparing—until the previous Business Secretary was caught declaring war on Murdoch—to shadow this procedure. When the decision was taken to refer it to the Culture Secretary, I wrote to Sir Gus O’Donnell on 22 December, referring to public statements made by the Secretary of State and asking whether, in the light of those statements, Sir Gus was satisfied that the Secretary of State could rule with impartiality on this matter.
	As is now well known, Sir Gus replied to me on 22 December, stating, having taken advice:
	“I am satisfied that those statements do not amount to a pre-judgement of the case in question”.
	That seems pretty clear, and that was the judgment made at the time. The judgment has been relied upon by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on countless occasions since to justify the Secretary of State’s being asked to exercise that role. It is now clear, is it not, that Sir Gus O’Donnell did not have available to him or his lawyers all the evidence that he might have considered about the suitability or the impartiality of the Secretary of State? Not only that, as the Culture Secretary and the Prime Minister, who relied on Sir Gus’s advice, actively, knowingly and deliberately kept the Cabinet Secretary in the dark about what had been going on between them in respect of matters that were at the very least entirely relevant to whether this Secretary of State was a suitable person to conduct this process.

Kevin Brennan: While my right hon. Friend was making this accusation, the Culture Secretary was shaking his head. He now has an opportunity to refute the allegation by intervening. Would my right hon. Friend welcome such an intervention?

John Denham: I would indeed welcome an intervention that told the House why neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister thought it appropriate to tell the Cabinet Secretary of the existence of the November memo to the Prime Minister. The Culture Secretary should have gone to the Cabinet Secretary and said: “This is relevant to your decision as to whether I am a suitable person”. Why did the Secretary of State not make that available?

Jeremy Hunt: Because I was not party to any of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary.

John Denham: The Secretary of State would have known on 22 December that the Cabinet Secretary had written to me saying that he was in the clear. Any honest Secretary of State would have turned around at that moment—

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When an hon. or right hon. Member starts a sentence with “Any honest” something or other, we are getting close to the time when we need to be careful.

Nigel Evans: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We must use temperate language throughout this debate. That would be incredibly useful for its tone. We also need to be aware that the winding-up speeches will commence at around 3.45 pm, so it would helpful if we focused on the subject matter of the debate.

John Denham: It must, shall we say, have occurred to the Secretary of State that the Cabinet Secretary did not know of his memo. It must certainly have occurred to the Prime Minister that the Cabinet Secretary could not possibly have had the chance to consider that memo before he wrote the letter. Thus, from 22 December onwards, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have relied essentially on a fiction—a letter from Sir Gus O’Donnell that relied on his not knowing what had been going on between them in the memos.

Edward Leigh: rose —

John Denham: I need to make some progress.
	What do we now know about the conduct of the Secretary of State? On 12 November 2010, he was advised not to have any external discussions on the merger and not to write to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about it. He was told that if he did so, it carried risks to the robustness of the decisions.
	As other Members have said, there were two key parts to the memo sent to the Prime Minister. The first lets us know in no unambiguous terms of the Secretary of State’s support for the merger proceeding and his belief that if it were blocked, our media sector would suffer for years. Secondly, however, and of equal significance, it proposed a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and the Culture Secretary himself
	“to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.”
	In the light of the legal advice given to the Secretary of State on 12 November, he must have known not only that sending that memo was inappropriate, but that the course of action he was proposing—a cabal of Ministers at the top of Government involving the one person who was meant to be acting in a quasi-judicial manner and who should have had no discussions and no connections with anyone else—flew in the face of the advice he had been given and was clearly acting in an entirely inappropriate manner.

Damian Collins: The right hon. Gentleman has read out the last sentence of the memo. Will he read out the preceding sentence?

John Denham: The previous sentence referred to the procedural processes. [Interruption.] Let me acknowledge that the memo refers to the proper procedures, but I will make this point to the House. The Secretary of State seems to be under the impression that if only he litters his memos and letters with the occasional reference to proper procedure, he can behave in a way that is entirely improper and outside the procedure. The sentence about proper procedure to which the hon. Gentleman wants me to refer is totally invalidated by the following sentence, which effectively says, “Let’s do something completely improper”—have a meeting involving the Business Secretary. The Secretary of State, of all people, should have had no discussions with any Minister, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, because he was meant to be acting in a quasi-judicial manner.
	My final point is about the relevance of the motion. I believe that the Secretary of State’s and, indeed, the Prime Minister’s actions in concealing this memo are an absolute disgrace, placing the advice that the Cabinet Secretary was able to give us in a very bad light. They failed to correct that; they failed to go to the Cabinet Secretary to say, “You should know about his memo.” What is more, and it is directly relevant to the motion, when the Culture Secretary had the opportunity to put the record straight on 25 April in response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), he failed to do so. He has concealed the existence of the memo, concealed the fact that he was proposing to act in an entirely inappropriate manner and failed to disclose it to the House when he had the opportunity to so. At the very least, shall we say, might that not suggest in the mind of a reasonable person that there is a question or two for Sir Alex Allan to consider? It is the refusal even to look into these matters that makes this matter such a disgrace. That is why this motion should be carried.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. The time limit is reduced to six minutes.

Therese Coffey: I am greatly saddened by the motion. I think that it is a terrible shame that it reflects the naked political opportunism that we are seeing on the Opposition Benches.
	I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that ever since he was given responsibility for this process he has done exactly
	the right thing, and I am not aware that any evidence has been presented—although opinions, beliefs and smears have been presented today—suggesting that he did anything otherwise. I believe that engaging in this heated debate in the terms that have been expressed will do nothing but continue to drag politics into the mud, and that is something that should worry us all—an opinion that I share with the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer present, although I rarely share his opinions.

Nigel Dodds: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced on both sides. Let us cut through all the political point-scoring, spin and hype. The crucial question, to which the hon. Lady has referred, is whether, during the period in which the Secretary of State had responsibility and a quasi-judicial role, he acted in a proper way in carrying out his duty. Unless there is hard evidence to the contrary, that should determine how we vote this afternoon.

Therese Coffey: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and given what he has said, I hope that he will join us in the Lobby and oppose this shameful motion.
	All sorts of claims have been thrown out about improper behaviour, but for the public outside, the reality is that News Corp still has only a 39% shareholding in BSkyB. If, as Opposition Members have suggested, there was collusion and an agenda, surely the process would have been completed some time ago. The reality is very different: the reality is that the Enterprise Act 2002 was followed properly, and representations were made in line with the law. Opposition Members may talk about perceptions, but the law must be followed. I am absolutely confident that by taking independent advice and, indeed, going further than he needed to, my right hon. Friend showed that he was setting aside his own view that this could be the right thing for our media. He set that view aside when he took on his responsibility, and nothing has been said today that suggests anything to the contrary.

Angie Bray: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has ever heard the expression “Don’t let the facts spoil a good story”, but I think that it is about as appropriate a phrase that there could possibly be to describe what is happening today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are entering the deepest realms of conspiracy theory?

Therese Coffey: I agree with my hon. Friend. This has been an extraordinary time. While I understand the politics of the Opposition, I wish that they would focus on the real issues that are affecting the country today, such as the economy and foreign affairs in, for instance, Syria. The Leader of the Opposition made no reference to those matters earlier.
	There might be rather more positive feeling in the Chamber if the last Government had acted in any way that suggested that the ministerial code was being followed. Let me clarify that. I am not criticising the last Prime Minister for not referring himself to the ministerial adviser or resigning on matters affecting his own advisers which led to their being sacked or having to resign, and I think that the Opposition should extend the same
	courtesy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He trusted his special adviser strongly and has the highest regard for him—I have no reason to doubt that—but, again, things did not go well. The gentleman resigned, and my right hon. Friend acted honourably in accepting the resignation and making it clear that that behaviour was not appropriate.
	Although I have taken two interventions, I do not wish to extend my speech unnecessarily, because I know that many other Members wish to speak. I will be voting against the motion because of its naked political opportunism, and because no evidence has been presented suggesting that my right hon. Friend acted in any way against the law, or the spirit of the law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and BSkyB is still independent of News Corp’s ownership. Many frustrations were experienced along the way, which led to some of the excessive lobbying that we have seen. I encourage every Member to reject the motion out of hand.

Gerry Sutcliffe: We are having this debate because it presents the only opportunity that the Opposition will have to try to get to the bottom of this matter. It is no good Government Members’ saying that it was wrong for us to table the motion. I agree with the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Perhaps when we were in government we should have taken the opportunity to do exactly what he suggested and appoint an independent adviser, someone who could have helped the Secretary of State in his present predicament—for it is a predicament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) pointed out, the debate is clearly divisive in terms of the issues that we want to raise with each other, but we have not had an opportunity to question the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary in the Department about some of those issues.

Helen Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Secretary of State has given a very good account of himself twice in this place, and that on both occasions there were ample opportunities to question him? Moreover, he appeared before the Leveson inquiry for more than six hours under oath and was forensically examined, and not a shred of further contrary evidence emerged as a result. As a lawyer with some 23 years’ experience who has been listening carefully to the debate today, I fail to see what will be gained from the launching of a third inquiry, apart from blatant party political opportunism on the part of some of those in the Chamber.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not accept that. I am not a lawyer, but I have had 18 years’ experience in the House of Commons, and I recall similar situations in which, unfortunately—and I mean unfortunately—Ministers have been put in the stressful position of having to defend themselves. Again unfortunately, on occasion over the years they have not been able to defend themselves, and have gone.
	What was necessary on this occasion was the opportunity for an independent adviser to examine the Secretary of State’s actions. I understood from his responses that he firmly believes that he has done nothing wrong, and he
	is entitled to that belief, but questions are being asked by colleagues on all sides. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) has said that the coalition partners feel that there are questions to be answered.
	Surely the Secretary of State must understand the depth of feeling among Opposition Members about some of the processes that took place. Certainly I, as a former Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, could not believe that the special adviser had been given so much power to act in the way that he did. During our time in government, we dealt with the sale of the Tote and with the issue of the “crown jewels” —the question of what should and should not be televised. We received clear briefings from the permanent secretary about what our legal responsibilities were and about what we could not do.
	When the Secretary of State made his statement some months ago, I asked him why the political adviser had been given the role of backstop or contact with News International. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, given all the furore surrounding the issue and, in particular, the actions of the Business Secretary, the Secretary of State put himself in a terrible position—or was put in that position by the Prime Minister—in relation to the Department’s roles.
	When we asked why the permanent secretary supported this action, the Secretary of State said that the permanent secretary had been “content”. The meaning of the word “content” is open to question. When the permanent secretary went to the Public Accounts Committee, he refused to answer questions on the issue. He has gone before the Leveson inquiry, but I can tell the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) that none of the pertinent questions relating to this issue were asked at the inquiry. Where can parliamentarians get the opportunity to ask the questions that needed to be asked?

Robert Buckland: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I know that he has considerable ministerial experience. He has made the point, properly, that when quasi-judicial procedures are adopted, Ministers must act very carefully within guidelines. Where is the hard evidence that this Secretary of State did not act in accordance with the careful strictures of the quasi-judicial procedure? It is all very well talking about feelings, but where is the evidence?

Gerry Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen raised that point in his questions to the Secretary of State. He also raised the issue of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the special adviser. I am beginning to support the ideas of the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. If an independent adviser had had an opportunity to see that there was a problem—because it was a problem raised by Members in all parts of the House—that person could have investigated further. That was not the situation. I ask Members of all parties to consider how the public see this matter in relation to the wider issues. The press have taken a view, but how do the public get to find out what has taken place?
	I have been a strong supporter of this House over many years, and believe we should be able to inquire about things through our Select Committee processes
	and so forth. As a Minister, I was happy to appear before Select Committees. There is an untold story here, however, and until it is told, with the opportunity for questioning, we will never know what happened. That is a terrible position for the Secretary of State to be in. I respect him and have had good dealings with him over many years, but I think he has been left in a vulnerable position by the Prime Minister, because an independent person has not at least had an opportunity to ascertain the facts, after which the Prime Minister can make a decision.

Alun Cairns: The reality is that the Secretary of State was questioned for six hours at the Leveson inquiry by a Queen’s counsel, and did not use parliamentary tactics of avoiding questions in different ways. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that six hours of questioning by an independent QC was inadequate?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Secretary of State was not asked any pertinent questions at the Leveson inquiry about the issues we are raising today.
	On the subject of Leveson, we will have to wait and see the conclusions, but we all hope it makes recommendations that we can all support. The cost of that inquiry is also in the public mind, however. The Prime Minister put it across that Leveson would deal with this issue, but Leveson himself has said he could not deal with it for the reasons we heard earlier. I think it would have been cleaner and more appropriate for the ministerial code to have been employed. We have all argued for that code over the years, and having a story unfold under that code can be a protection for Ministers, not just a means to hold them to account. That has not happened, however. Questions remain unanswered, and as long as that remains the case the Secretary of State will continue to be in a difficult situation.

Damian Collins: I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) that this is an important issue that should be debated, and the Opposition should have an opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House, but we have heard nothing new today—nothing that has not been covered many times before. With respect, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) that I did not hear what the pertinent extra questions that the Secretary of State must answer were; I did not learn what outstanding issues have not yet been covered. We have gone around in circles on all the old issues. That is why it was right for Sir Alex Allan to say there was nothing more he could add because what more was there to say after the six hours of evidence at the Leveson inquiry and all the previous opportunities for questioning on the Floor of the House?
	A lot has been made of the memo that the Secretary of State sent to the Prime Minister. It was sent at a time when the Secretary of State had no idea that he would be asked to be involved in this process. The memo rightly deals with media policy and a recommendation about that any decision not to allow the bid to go forward should be taken on grounds of media plurality and not as a result of lobbying from outside organisations which may be open to judicial review. That was a
	perfectly proper point of view, and perfectly reasonable advice of the sort that a Culture Secretary might give to a Prime Minister.
	Earlier, I asked the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) to read out the sentence in which the Secretary of State says:
	“It would be totally wrong for the Government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length.”
	Could the Secretary of State have been any clearer about his views on the process and how it should be followed by members of the Government? We should see his final sentence—his request for a meeting—in the context of that remark. There may well be some broader issues about media policy that it would be perfectly appropriate for the Culture Secretary and the Business Secretary to discuss with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—issues that were not at all specific to the merger deal that was on the table. The significance of this memo has been blown out of all proportion.
	Let us turn to the guidance that the Secretary of State received. I have not heard any Member question the method by which he sought outside independent advice during the course of his deliberations on this matter, or challenge whether he asked for more information than he needed or ask questions about publishing all the advice on the record so everyone could see it—something no Secretary of State had done before in a similar situation. No one has questioned that, so I challenge the notion that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) touched on at the beginning of the debate: that this process was always flawed and the Secretary of State was always prejudiced in his view, because there is absolutely no evidence of that at all. There is no evidence that the Secretary of State did anything other than follow the independent advice and undertake his legal obligations as Secretary of State through the process. No Member today has challenged him on the substance of what he did.
	Let us consider what the Leader of the Opposition said at the Leveson inquiry yesterday. He was asked what his view was on how this process may be changed for the future—about what we can learn from what has happened. He said he thought politicians should remain involved. When this matter was debated last summer, that was not the view of the shadow Secretary of State, who said politicians should be taken out of the process entirely. The Labour party now believe politicians should be involved in taking these decisions. Where the Secretary of State moves away from independent advice, that should be published, and it can be reviewed and appealed. Under the Leader of the Opposition’s view of how things should work in future, the result would have been exactly the same. Nothing would have been different, because the Secretary of State followed all the advice, so there would have been no need for a referral or appeal. There can be no proper questions about whether something wrong was done.
	Opposition Members claim there was some massive conspiracy to favour News Corporation, but they have absolutely evidence of that. It is a bit like someone complaining that an assailant has picked their pocket even though they remain in possession of the wallet they claim has been stolen. The Secretary of State did
	not abuse his power. He was not open to influence and external lobbying from News Corporation that in any way could have affected his judgment, because there is no evidence of any such action by him.

Angie Bray: Is that not the disgraceful thing about today’s debate? We have had no new evidence, but just a lot of smears and highly partisan accusations. Such behaviour is what demeans the reputation of the House of Commons.

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I believe there are no grounds for further inquiries; we have covered all these points. This is still an important issue, however, and it is perfectly valid for the House to debate it. The Secretary of State has now had a chance to come to the House and set the record straight on many of the important outstanding questions, but some Opposition Members will never be satisfied. The genesis of this debate came a few weeks ago when the shadow Secretary of State called for the resignation of the Secretary of State without having read the evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry. The call came only 23 minutes after a great volume of paper had been produced. I cannot presume that the shadow Secretary of State read all of that in the 23 minutes it took to make the decision. She has dug a hole and kept on digging, and not been able to produce any new evidence—nothing of significance at all.
	Why are we even in this position, why are we even having this debate and why do we know so much about what the Secretary of State said? At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said the only reason why the News Corporation bid could have come in was that the last Government changed the rules on allowing foreign companies to own UK broadcasters. We would all be fascinated to see the chain of e-mails, text messages and correspondence between Ministers in the last Government on that matter, but we will never do so. We only know about this issue because the Prime Minister decided there should be a full public inquiry and all the information has been made public. Ministers have been questioned on the record about it.
	We also know from the Leveson inquiry the reasons why Tony Blair did not feel the last Government should have had an inquiry in 2006-07, after the Information Commissioner’s report looking at illegal use of information in news stories had been published and after concerns had been raised. He did not do it because he did not want the fight with the press. The last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), ducked that issue as well, despite the revelations in The Guardian about phone hacking and despite the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the last Parliament producing more concerns and more evidence. He did not dare take on the media and have this row.
	This Government have done that. In the handling of the News Corporation-BSkyB merger, there can never have been a more transparent process in respect of understanding the thinking and working of a Secretary of State in making his decision. It is clear that the Secretary of State always followed independent advice, and no Member today has advanced any argument that questions that in any way.

Jim Sheridan: May I begin by saying that I shall heed the advice that is often given by Mr Speaker about how we behave in the Chamber and, indeed, about our actions? Today has been a perfect example of point scoring—that is exactly what has been going on.
	Let me begin in a non-partisan way. Since being elected as an executive member of the parliamentary Labour party, I have often objected to the association of Ministers, Prime Ministers and others with News International and other news outlets. After being elected to the PLP committee eight years ago, I raised that issue with the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I found it obscene that he travelled halfway around the world to court Rupert Murdoch and gain his support. I do not think that that should be allowed in any democracy, and I voiced concerns in the PLP on behalf of a number of people whom I represented who felt the same way.
	My very good friend the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was perhaps not as exercised as Tony Blair about going around the world and courting Rupert Murdoch’s support, but he had an opportunity when he was in office to introduce legislation that could have stopped at a stroke some of News International’s behaviour. From that point of view, I feel that I am exonerated, given the opinions that I expressed at the time. I genuinely believe that people outside are angry—people who do not have access to all the stuff about what he or she said and when and how they said it, and so on. They want to know that their politicians have the highest integrity and are not intimidated, bullied or bought by support. That is what they want to know, and that is the important thing about today.
	The Secretary of State has an ally in the Scottish First Minister, who is dancing around the smoke signals in Scotland and is being equally evasive about his relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Hopefully, that will come out in the inquiry today, but we will have to see how it pans out. The Secretary of State has attended a number of meetings of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member, and I have the highest respect for him. However, because this whole thing has blown up, in future I would have difficulty taking seriously his judgment or his integrity. Conservative Back Benchers can speak for themselves, but I suggest that Labour members of the Committee would feel the same way.
	We have heard recorded evidence or non-evidence about what happened, but we have not heard—perhaps my party is as guilty as anyone else—about the cosy dinners and meetings that take place at taxpayer-funded residences and are not recorded. We do not know what happened, what was said or what was agreed. That has got to stop too, because it does not help the public to understand exactly how the system works. Before the Conservatives came to power, their manifesto said that the party would clean up the image of politics and politicians. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us what the coalition, or the Conservative Government, have done to clean up that image. Certainly in correspondence that I receive people say that nothing has changed, or in fact that things have got worse.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Sheridan: No, I will not bother.
	May I draw another parallel with the situation that the Secretary of State is in? There is concern about the perception of the Olympics in this country. As things stand, transport workers in London are threatening to take industrial action and thereby divert attention away from what we hope will be a successful Olympics. By contrast, the Secretary of State is now a toxic Secretary of State with no credibility or integrity. People out there in the court of public opinion say that they do not want him as the leading light on the Olympics. He should do the honourable thing and go.
	People have said that the Secretary of State came here with the utmost honesty and integrity, but I have to pay the utmost attention to the people who are responsible for bringing this whole thing out, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who were terrific in how they analysed the information available to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and managed to get it out of the Secretary of State and other senior politicians in the Conservative Government. I think that the Secretary of State should do the honourable thing and resign in order to give someone a clear opportunity to take us into the Olympics and ensure that they are a success.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. The time limit is being reduced to four minutes in order to accommodate more Members.

Mark Reckless: If the Opposition could push home an issue of confidence in an individual Minister, they would lay a motion to cut his salary, but they cannot and have not done so. We have heard three points from the Opposition. First, there is a memo—they have not actually quoted from it—in which the Secretary of State said that it would be totally wrong to get involved in a competition issue which must be decided at arm’s length. Secondly, they go on about the special adviser and argue that the Secretary of State has to take responsibility for him, including discipline, according to the ministerial code. Once the Secretary of State found out about the tone and volume of the special adviser’s communications, he required him to resign. Thirdly, we are left with some sort of generalised accusation that the Secretary of State was a bit too friendly with the lobbyist Frédéric Michel and had informal contact with him that he should not have had—an accusation made without taking into account the fact that the Secretary of State and Frédéric Michel were in the same hospital while their wives were giving birth in adjoining rooms.
	I will focus the rest of my remarks—[ Interruption. ] Well, that is all there is from the Opposition. I will focus the rest of my remarks on a constitutional issue. It is the Prime Minister who determines confidence in his Ministers. He has confidence in his excellent Secretary of State, who has acted with integrity throughout the process. What the Opposition are trying to do with this abnegatory motion is suggest that, rather than the Prime Minister or this House being responsible, some independent
	adviser should take charge. The Opposition refer to the ministerial code as if it is a written constitution, and to Sir Alex Allan as if he is the Supreme Court. The previous Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, said of the ministerial code:
	“Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not a piece of paper.”
	It is very important to look at least briefly at how the ministerial code has developed, because since it was published in 1992 it has been given a great significance, as if it is somehow more than a guideline. It was published in 1992 because the then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, as he admitted in 1995, agitated for its publication, and it has been used since as if somehow it should supplant the Prime Minister’s or Parliament’s responsibility. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) suggests that somehow Sir Alex Allan should look at this matter as if the Prime Minister had done something wrong and decide whether he should stay, which is a preposterous suggestion. The Prime Minister is responsible to this House and we are responsible to our electorate.
	There is a rather wonderful history of the genesis of the ministerial code and how it developed—it is the only such book I am aware of—by a lady called Amy Baker. I will quote one small section to Members. Prime Minister Attlee took responsibility for every part of the code himself; all the drafts and changes were done specifically by him. Once he ceased to be Prime Minister, however, the Cabinet Secretary took charge of the document, and the reason for that, according to this history of the code, is that
	“it would have defeated the original object of the document, if every Prime Minister had been allowed to ‘hijack’ the rulebook for there own purposes… Hankey,”
	the first Cabinet Secretary,
	“had drafted the very first guidelines in order to establish some continuity of procedure which would enable the Cabinet Office to organise business without being disrupted too much on a change of government.”
	I disagree with that. It is for the Government to decide. The civil service are using these issues as a naked power grab. With Adam Werritty they used it to say that somehow Ministers have to be regulated by the civil service in taking external advice. Now they use this to suggest that somehow all special advisers should report to Sir Jeremy Heywood. No, it is Ministers who are in charge, not the civil service.

Alun Cairns: I am really disappointed by the way in which the Opposition have treated this debate. They seem to subscribe to the doctrine that if they say something often enough people will start to believe it, but that undermines the whole integrity of Parliament and, certainly, makes people question their integrity, purpose and motivation.
	We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is not in her place but opened the debate, a dismal litany of allegation after allegation, yet her fox has quite obviously been shot by the letter from Sir Alex Allan, who clearly states:
	“I do not believe that I could usefully add to the facts in this case”.
	Later in the debate, we heard from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who on the one hand argued that the case should be referred to Sir Alex Allan, on the other said that Sir Alex was a poodle and not wholly independent—and then started misquoting the Public Administration Committee. So let us be frank: even if the case was referred to Sir Alex Allan, the Opposition would not like the outcome, because he says that he could not add to any of the evidence that has been presented.

Christopher Pincher: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the approach adopted by Opposition Members is an hypocrisy of which J. Arthur Rank would have been proud?

Alun Cairns: I could not have described it better myself, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Cairns: I will in a moment.
	I remind the House that it took 23 minutes for the shadow Secretary of State to come to the judgment that the Secretary of State should resign and, then, that he should be referred to Sir Alex Allan. That judgment—

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Cairns: I will in a moment.
	That judgment came directly from testimony by James Murdoch and Frédéric Michel, the quality of whose evidence on other occasions the right hon. and learned Lady had herself questioned. So it took her 23 minutes to make that judgment—on someone whom she had doubted in the first place.

Chris Bryant: Well, it took the Prime Minister 15 minutes to decide that the Secretary of State was innocent. Let me turn to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), however, because he read out the Whips’ question earlier about Sir Alex Allan, but he is a member of the very Committee that stated:
	“We felt, however, that he”—
	Sir Alex Allan—
	“was unsuited to this role because he did not convince us that he would be able to demonstrate the independence the post requires.”
	Now, I know that the hon. Gentleman hardly ever turns up to the Committee, but that was his Committee’s conclusion.

Alun Cairns: We have already heard from the hon. Gentleman and from his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham selective misquotations of the Public Administration Committee’s report, but, whatever Opposition Members say, time and again we can point to Sir Alex Allan’s letter, in which he states that
	“I do not believe that I could usefully add to the facts in this case”.
	Sir Alex is fully aware of what has been said at the Leveson inquiry, what has been said here in the Chamber and what has been said at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so Opposition Members are calling for—

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Cairns: I am sorry, but because of the limit I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has shown a strong interest in the matter.
	Opposition Members are calling for the matter to be referred to someone, but if they do not like the outcome they will come out with the same judgment and call for the Secretary of State to go.
	The key question is, was the issue handled properly? I say, absolutely yes and the Secretary of State has demonstrated the highest integrity, because at each and every stage he followed independent advice, which often went against the Murdoch interest. We have also heard that, because the Secretary of State followed that independent advice, James Murdoch was absolutely furious, so if there was a conspiracy it was pretty poorly planned.
	Much has also been made of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister, but, in view of the lobbying from the anti-Murdoch campaign leading up to that letter, and in view of the communications that I as a mere new Back Bencher had, I would be surprised if there was any Member who did not have a personal view on the issue. It would be almost impossible to pick out any Member, and certainly any Minister, who did not have an initial view on the matter. That is why the Secretary of State acted with the utmost integrity by taking advice and following it at each and every stage, and he did so because, as the letter shows, he was aware of the risk of a judicial review from the Murdochs and from the other side. He had no option other than to follow independent advice at every stage, and I am very glad he did.
	I am extremely disappointed by the dismal litany that we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham. She and other Labour Members should be judged by their own standards, and I would point to their former Prime Ministers and their special advisers.

Angela Eagle: We have had an important debate about ministerial conduct and how we protect the rights of this House in holding Ministers to account. We heard powerful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). On the Government Benches, we heard from the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and from the hon. Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), all of whom said that there are questions to answer, particularly to do with who should be allowed to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct.
	This is a debate that Labour Members should not have had to initiate. In that regard, I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. There is already a perfectly good system to make sure that Ministers abide by the rules in their conduct of Government business and in ensuring that Parliament is told the truth, and it is called the ministerial code, an updated version of which is produced at the beginning of every new Parliament. An independent adviser on the code is available to offer advice to Ministers on their interests and to investigate any alleged breaches. It is for the Prime Minister to be the guardian of the code and to refer any alleged breaches to the independent adviser for investigation.
	It is a clear and simple process, but what has happened in this case? I have read the ministerial code carefully,
	and I cannot find a clause that says, “This code applies to all members of the Government but the Prime Minister’s chums.” Will the Government be bringing out a new version to reflect this reality? Writing in the foreword of the most recent edition of the code, the Prime Minister said:
	“Our new government has a particular and historic responsibility: to rebuild confidence in our political system…People have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.”
	The Prime Minister talks the talk but he does not walk the walk.

Bernard Jenkin: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), my Liberal Democrat colleague on the Public Administration Committee, will the hon. Lady commit her party to supporting our recommendation that the independent adviser should be able to instigate his own investigations?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done this House a great service in publishing the report that is tagged with this debate. I think that situations have evolved since decisions were taken in the past. I certainly think that the suggestion that the independent adviser should be allowed to initiate investigations needs a fresh look in the light of the circumstances that have arisen. I, for one, have an open mind on that. He raises a very important subject that the House should debate. The Committee’s work on this is invaluable in the changing circumstances, and I look forward to its continuing.
	The Prime Minister’s decision not to ask the independent adviser on ministerial interests to investigate the Culture Secretary totally contradicts the commitment that he gave in his own foreword to his own code. It also totally disregards clear, prima facie evidence that the code has been breached and that there are good grounds for an investigation. That prima facie case was set out very powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and hinted at in slightly shyer terms by the right hon. Member for Bath.
	It took the Prime Minister 20 minutes from the conclusion of the Culture Secretary’s oral evidence to the Leveson inquiry to announce that there was no case to answer, but the Prime Minister was not considering the evidence, he was not interested in protecting the integrity of his Government, and he disregarded the need for Ministers to be straight with Parliament. That is a very important matter for the House. All he wanted to do was to protect his chum.
	To their credit, the Liberal Democrats have decided that they cannot go along with the Prime Minister’s cynical charade. Good for them, but I struggle to see why they should not join us in the Lobby for the vote. They should be in the Lobby with us, upholding the integrity of the ministerial code and supporting our call for the Culture Secretary to be referred to the independent adviser. It is not too late. The right hon. Member for Bath said there were still questions for the Minister to answer, but he did not go into detail on what they were. Liberal Democrat Members have said that they believe a referral to the independent adviser is in order, and I hope that even at this late hour they will reconsider their position and decide to join us in the Division Lobby to send a powerful message to the Prime Minister that the House will not stand by and tolerate being lied to and the ministerial code being an optional extra.
	The integrity of the Government’s relations with Parliament is at stake. We have an independent adviser on the ministerial code who was appointed on a not inconsiderable retainer of £20,000 per annum. He has been in place since November 2011 but the Prime Minister seems extraordinarily reluctant to call on his services. The Prime Minister blocked Sir Alex’s predecessor from investigating the former Defence Secretary. He now blocks Sir Alex from investigating the Culture Secretary.
	Ministers have recently taken to telling the country that we all need to be working harder, but we have a ministerial adviser champing at the bit to launch an investigation, and the Prime Minister keeping him locked in a cupboard. What are we paying the independent adviser for? This something-for-nothing culture needs to end. Let the independent adviser do his job. What does the Prime Minister have to fear?
	We heard today from right hon. and hon. Members how even a perfunctory look at the facts demonstrates that the Culture Secretary has a case to answer. Paragraph 1.2c of the ministerial code requires Ministers to
	“give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.
	The Secretary of State told the House on 25 April:
	“I made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business”—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 973.]
	Yet it turns out that the Culture Secretary was firing off memos to the Prime Minister backing the bid, and wanted a meeting with the Business Secretary to lobby him. I do not know what the Culture Secretary’s definition of “intervention” is, but it is not one that would be found in any English dictionary.
	In his parliamentary statement in April the Secretary of State told the House that
	“the contact that I had with Fred Michel was only at official meetings that were minuted with other people present”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 961]
	and that he had—I quote exactly—“zero” conversations with Michel. Yet it has now been revealed that he texted Michel directly when he had responsibility for overseeing the bid. In the Culture Secretary's “dictionary of convenient definitions” it appears that neither “contact” nor “conversations” mean text messages.
	The Secretary of State assured Parliament on 3 March 2011 that he had published
	“all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]
	He had published all the documents, all the meetings, all the contacts except the 191 phone calls with News Corporation, the 158 e-mails with News Corporation, and the 799 text messages with News Corporation. What on earth does the Culture Secretary think “all” means?
	We know that the Secretary of State is a keen dancer. Indeed, we have one of his Cabinet colleagues to thank for telling us that he has installed a sprung floor in his home, so that he can practise his “Strictly Come Dancing” routines. However, it is dancing on the head of a pin to claim that he did not intervene, that he was not in contact and that he had published all the evidence.
	Parliament deserves better than this. It is crystal clear that the Secretary of State’s former special adviser effectively opened an improper back channel of direct communication with News Corporation. If the special adviser had gone rogue, one would have thought that on uncovering his activities the Culture Secretary would have fired him immediately. But no, the Culture Secretary first told his special adviser that he had done nothing wrong. The next day—I suspect after looking at the front pages—he told his special adviser,
	“Everyone here thinks you need to go”,
	before apparently adding that “everyone” did not necessarily include him.
	Why has Adam Smith resigned when the Secretary of State feels that he himself has no case to answer? Is he expecting us to believe that he had no idea what his special adviser was up to in such a key area of policy, in which he had shown such prior interest? Paragraph 3.3 of the code makes it clear that Ministers must take responsibility for the actions of their special advisers. The Secretary of State must accept his responsibility.
	We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had not intervened when he had. We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had had no contact with News Corporation lobbyists when he had. We have a Cabinet Minister who told Parliament that he had published all the documents when he had not. The Prime Minister knows all that, but he says that there is nothing for the adviser on the ministerial code to investigate. Who is he kidding? He cannot even persuade the Deputy Prime Minister of that fact.
	Today, the House has an opportunity to make it clear that the ministerial code matters, that Ministers are accountable to this House and that the public can expect the highest standards from Ministers. The motion calls merely for Sir Alex Allan to investigate and for the existing system of ministerial accountability to this House to be used, rather than abused. I commend it to the House.

George Young: Although I wish that I could say that this has been a good debate, and despite some good contributions to it, it has not been. At business questions, I am asked by Members on both sides of the House for serious debates about matters of interest to our constituents. I contrast that with the miserable, opportunistic debate that we have had today. This has been a wasted opportunity, when we could have been debating issues of real interest to our constituents, such as Syria or the eurozone. Instead, we have been diverted on to this matter.
	Let me deal with some of the contributions. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made no distinction at all between the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before he assumed responsibility for the bid and those that he took afterwards. That was seized on by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who said that it would have been astonishing if the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport had had no views on the issue before he took responsibility for it, but that he subsequently made it absolutely clear that he was acting properly and in accordance with the law in dealing with that responsibility.
	My hon. Friend also made the interesting point that it was the last Labour Government who changed and expanded the role of special advisers—a matter that has now been referred to Alex Allan. Along with other hon. Members, my hon. Friend referred to the Public Administration Committee report, to which the Government will respond in due course.

Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: I will make just a little more progress.
	The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made an uncharacteristically partisan speech. He focused on the performance of this Government, but conveniently overlooked all the failures of ministerial performance in the previous one. There was a gap in the account that he related to the House.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made it absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State handled the bid by the book, to use his words, and had at several points taken decisions against the interests of News International. He said that one or two issues remained, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, they were not defined. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath implied that the failure to consult was behind the Liberal Democrats’ decision as much as anything else.

Duncan Hames: I am not one of those who has disputed the Secretary of State’s honesty, but there is the question of responsibility for special advisers. The ministerial code states that responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including, but not only, discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment. How did the Secretary of State effect that responsibility for the management and conduct of his special adviser?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House shortly afterwards and was cross-examined on that specific issue for a substantial time. He explained exactly what his responsibilities were and the action that he had taken.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Leader of the House give way?

George Young: No, I will make a little more progress.
	I very much regret the intervention that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Despite Mr Speaker’s ruling, I believe that it did nothing to enhance Parliament’s reputation. I very much hope that at some point the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing what he said.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) referred to the thoughtful report that his Committee had just produced—before the recent controversy, as he pointed out. He rehearsed the argument for the role of the adviser on ministerial interests being self-starting rather than his having to wait for a referral. The Government will of course respond to that report in due course. He also touched on broader issues to do with the civil service and special advisers.
	The best speech from the Labour Benches, if I may say so, came from the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), but he missed the point by not distinguishing between what my right hon. Friend did before and after he assumed responsibility. He produced no evidence at all of my right hon. Friend’s decisions being in any way contaminated by what had happened before he assumed responsibility.

John Denham: Surely the issue for today’s debate is not the Secretary of State’s conduct on the merger but how he acted in relation to the provision of information to the House. My contribution did not deal one way or the other with his conduct on the merger, it was about his failure to disclose to the Cabinet Secretary his attempts to influence the decision before it was his responsibility.

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that point substantially in his contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) contrasted the actions of the previous Government with Labour Members’ criticism of the coalition Government, implying that they expect higher standards of us than they expected of themselves.
	The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) said that today’s debate was the only opportunity for the House to deal with the matter, ignoring the role of Select Committees, the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made and the urgent question answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) made a robust defence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and rightly made the point that the ultimate decision rests with the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) said that the Opposition’s fox had been shot by the exchange of letters published today.
	On the matter at hand, the controversy surrounding the Culture Secretary’s handling of the BSkyB bid first arose on 24 April. The next day, the Prime Minister responded to questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time and the Culture Secretary came to the House to give a full account of himself for just over an hour. The following week, the Prime Minister answered questions for 52 minutes, and two weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appeared in front of Lord Justice Leveson for almost eight hours. And yet when did the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) first call for his resignation? At 4.30 pm on 24 April, before a single question had been raised in Parliament and before he had had an opportunity to respond to any of the allegations.

Chris Bryant: Will the Leader of the House give way?

George Young: No. This is what the right hon. and learned Lady said on the BBC—

Chris Bryant: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Nigel Evans: Order. Sir George Young has made it clear that he is not giving way. Will the House calm down in order for us to hear him?

George Young: When the right hon. and learned Lady was questioned on the BBC on whether she had read the evidence before calling for the resignation of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, she said:
	“I already had formed the view that Jeremy Hunt had acted totally inappropriately even before those emails were published because when I saw James Murdoch’s evidence to Leveson, it was quite clear the Culture Secretary had given James Murdoch to understand that he was not impartial in the bid, that he was on his side”.
	The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Leader of the House and I have respect for her, but is that not an extraordinarily ill-judged intervention for a qualified solicitor, a former Solicitor-General and an honorary Queen’s counsel? In what kind of banana republic would a lawyer convict somebody without a shred of evidence and before having had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness? If she is so quick to trust the word of a Murdoch at face value, will she today back Rupert Murdoch’s version of his telephone conversation with the former Prime Minister?
	The truth is that the only people who made up their minds before looking at any of the facts were the right hon. and learned Lady and the Leader of the Opposition, not the Prime Minister. She has at least climbed down from the initial demand for resignation. She is now asking for a referral to the independent adviser—[ Interruption. ] That is the motion on the Order Paper. She has engaged in a humiliating climbdown.
	Let us look at the case for referral. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has already been referred to, and attended, a forum that is, in a sense, far more rigorous than any process that Sir Alex Allan could follow. What could be more rigorous than eight hours of questioning by an experienced barrister, in public, on TV, under oath, in front of a judge-led inquiry?

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: No.

Chris Bryant: rose —

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Nigel Evans: Order. I call Sir George Young.

George Young: Nothing could be designed by the civil service that could come close to that level of scrutiny.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he enhances his reputation by withdrawing the remark he made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Chris Bryant: I am not going to withdraw anything; I will repeat the accusation. The Secretary of State deliberately misled this House. Why, when the Prime Minister spoke
	to the House and the Secretary of State answered a written question on 7 September, and on all the occasions to which the Leader of the House has referred, did they choose not to correct the record? The Secretary of State never chose to point out that he had written to the Prime Minister and been in correspondence with him, or that everything he said in the Chamber had been a lie?

George Young: Not only has the hon. Gentleman made an accusation, he did not substantiate it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered in his initial remarks all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
	A number of Opposition Members referred to the Public Administration Committee report on the role of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. The Prime Minister has simply followed the precedent established by the previous Prime Minister. When the Committee recommended in the previous Parliament that the independent adviser be allowed to initiate his own inquiries—precisely the recommendation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex—the outgoing Labour Government responded:
	“it must ultimately be for the Prime Minister to account to Parliament for his decisions and actions in relation to the appointment of his Ministers.”
	The Opposition’s charges against my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary have been answered at length by my right hon. Friend and by the Prime Minister. On the question of misleading Parliament, the Culture Secretary has today responded in detail to each and every one of the Opposition’s allegations and he has swatted them away with relish. On the matter of special advisers, which is specifically referred to in the motion, it is unfortunate for Labour that that subject has been brought up in the same week as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), sat before the Leveson inquiry and denied, as only he could, any knowledge that his political team briefed against his fellow Ministers and unleashed hell on his Chancellor. Indeed, it was lucky that we could see the former Prime Minister on our TV screens at all given that the air was thick with the smell of cordite from the smoking guns pointing in his direction.
	Let me remind the House what the former Prime Minister said on Monday when asked whether his special advisers briefed against ministerial colleagues:
	“I would hope not. I have no evidence of that.”
	Let us see what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday to the same inquiry:
	“On Damian McBride, when I was a Cabinet Minister, I did raise a specific concern that I had with Mr Brown, I believe in…2008, about some of Mr McBride’s activities.”
	As the shadow Justice Secretary said this morning on the BBC, they cannot both be right. It ill behoves the Opposition to lecture this Government on Ministers taking responsibility for their special advisers when the former Prime Minister took no responsibility for what his advisers got up to.
	The issues we have been debating today will not divert the coalition from its core task of dealing with the huge deficit we inherited and rebalancing the economy. The Opposition are one party united in their opportunism; we are two parties coming together to sort out the mess they left behind. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 252, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

Safeguarding Children

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the updated statutory guidance to safeguard and promote the welfare of children published on 12 June 2012; and calls on the Government to ensure that the needs of the child are at the centre of all assessments and decision-making processes regarding safeguarding, that appropriate information and guidance is provided to young people so they understand the risks of abuse and sexual exploitation, that all local authorities and decision-makers are upholding the highest standards when it comes to integrated care access and multi-disciplinary and multiagency working, and that early intervention programmes are promoted on the best available evidence, and to clarify who is responsible within Government for implementing the measures included in the new guidance.
	Yesterday the Government published updated statutory guidance to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I am sure that all parts of the House will welcome the opportunity to consider the Government’s proposals today. Our motion has been tabled to provide for such a debate, and it sets out five areas of concern.
	Modern society places huge pressures on children and young people. Although the influences of adult life on children are not new, it is clear that the advent of social media, new pressures on parents and the increasing availability of sexual content are accelerating the process. The term “child protection” covers a wide spectrum of issues and crosses several Departments. From online grooming, child neglect and forced labour to the trafficking of minors, the challenge of ensuring that children get a safe and happy start in life has a moral imperative—a view that I know is shared in all parts of the House. However, it is not just a moral necessity we face: the long-term impact of child abuse—to take one important example—has been well documented. It is therefore critical that we invest in early intervention, not just for young children, but for older children as well, in order to reduce the long-term risks and costs.
	It is one of the foremost duties of any civilised society to protect its most vulnerable members. It is clear that that duty was breached in the most horrific way in the recent case in Rochdale, and in the tragedies that befell Victoria Climbié and baby Peter Connelly. The Government were right to establish the Munro review, to provide a thoughtful, calm analysis of the challenges affecting the child protection system. I want to focus on the five areas that we have identified in the motion as being of particular importance, though I make no claim that they are fully comprehensive.

Frank Field: I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the approach that my hon. Friend is taking to this subject. I should like to give him some information to emphasise the urgency of this debate and the need to approach it in this atmosphere. Part of Birkenhead is so rich that it makes Hampstead look downmarket, but parts are not so advantaged. A couple of months ago, I asked three head teachers from the more challenged areas, in different meetings, what percentage of families they would not wish to be part of if they were a child. Independently, all three said about 40%. I then asked them what proportion of children they would like to see in care today, if there were no restriction on budgets. I am not saying that that is desirable, incidentally. They said 20%. So I have an
	image of a group of poor social workers having to fight over inadequate budgets—whatever party is in power—and thinking, “If I get the resources, I might be able to prevent a child’s murder. If my colleague is not as powerful as me, perhaps the murder will take place elsewhere.” Will my hon. Friend stress that this is not just about resources, however—they are important, but we will never have enough to deal with these issues—and that it is about what is happening to parenting more generally?

Stephen Twigg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. He has a long-standing record on these matters and is respected in all parts of the House for his work in this area. I will touch on some of those issues later in my speech.
	The first of the five areas involves ensuring that we have a child-centred system, and that the needs of the child are the first consideration of the many professionals who are involved in child protection and safeguarding. This was at the heart of the Children Act 2004, and of other reforms brought in by the previous Labour Government. They include the establishment of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the focus on five clear outcomes through Every Child Matters, which helped to deliver some of the previous Government’s most successful policies, including the reduction in child poverty. Yesterday’s report from the Child Poverty Action Group reminded us of that achievement, and of the real danger that that progress could be reversed by the present Government.
	Let me place on record our support for the work of Professor Eileen Munro, who has done a service to the Government and to the country in promoting this child-centred approach. She is absolutely right to focus on the journey of the child through the system. Any shift from a process that is focused excessively on compliance to one that better values the expertise of professionals is one that will have my support. However, we need to strike a balance between allowing professionals the flexibility to make a judgment on a child’s needs and the need for clear rules and principles. There is clearly a danger that a big reduction in the amount of guidance could take us from one undesirable state to another.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that child protection is no longer specifically included in the Ofsted framework, although I am told that it is implicit? Does he also share my concern that the Education Act 2011 puts more power into teachers’ hands and puts children at risk by allowing a teacher of the opposite gender to search a child without another adult being present? Does he agree that we should look into those issues more carefully?

Stephen Twigg: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s current and previous work in this area, including her chairing of the all-party parliamentary group on child protection. She has raised a number of proper concerns about the changes that have been made, and I will return later in my speech to some of them—including the involvement of Ofsted and the well-being of children.
	As I was saying, there is a balance to be struck between professional flexibility and clear rules and principles. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has warned that
	“the Government should not move too quickly to rapid deregulation. It needs to invest heavily in building the skills, confidence and experience of all professionals working with children.”
	In its response, published today, to yesterday’s announcement, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that it supports the slimlining of guidance, but it is worried that the downsizing might have gone too far so that vital information is no longer included. It provided the examples of training, lessons from research and, in particular, the safeguarding needs of particularly vulnerable groups, mentioning forced marriages, female genital mutilation and victims of trafficking.

Alex Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that children in care, including those trafficked for purposes he has mentioned, including sexual exploitation, who find themselves up against the law should be treated first as children and victims, not as criminals? Something needs to be done to ensure that all agencies, including the police, regard that as a first principle.

Stephen Twigg: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern in that regard. I hope the Minister will have something to say about that when he responds. The consultation on the draft guidance issued yesterday may provide an opportunity to clarify some of these matters. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that when he speaks after me.
	Professor Munro makes it clear in her report that the Government should not cherry-pick her recommendations. She says, for instance, that
	“reducing prescription without creating a learning system will not secure the desired improvements in the system.”
	We should remember that only one of her 15 recommendations is about reducing bureaucracy. The bulk of her report is about improving training and leadership in the system. As the Government make the move away from prescription, it is important that they are clear about how they intend to ensure robust checks and balances in the system and rigorous training and supervision and staff.
	In her recent evidence to the Select Committee on Education, Professor Munro said that because
	“there is so much change related directly both to child protection but also to the health and police reforms…we cannot be quite sure how they pan out in reality and whether we end up with some unintended clashes so there are gaps in the way services are being provided.”
	If the Government’s own appointed adviser is warning that the changes could have these unintended consequences, it is clearly critical that Ministers heed that advice.
	Taking the example of today’s Government announcement on shared parenting, while the principle of parental balance is of course important, it is vital that the change does not create more confusion and delays in the courts, which would not be in the interests of children, families or, indeed, of the taxpayer. David Norgrove in the family justice review cautioned against such a move, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has said:
	“Children’s best interests should be the paramount consideration in decisions affecting them. That principle has been clear in law for over two decades. Ministers should think very carefully before they decide to weaken it.”

Edward Timpson: David Norgrove is, of course, talking principally about equality of time. In family court cases in which I was involved, it was clear that when people started to talk about 9 o’clock in the morning until 5 o’clock in the evening and shared arrangements of equality during the week, it often proved divisive, whereas trying to reach agreement is in the best interests of the child. What I think the Government are trying to achieve through their shared parenting considerations is children receiving a shared time of quality care from both parents, which is a very different model from simply trying to cut the time in half.

Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman, who I know has campaigned and spoken out on these issues for many years both before and after he came to the House, speaks with authority. What I am saying is that we need to tread very carefully, as these changes might have unintended consequences. I believe I am right in saying that evidence from Australia suggests that a similar change resulted in greater litigation and greater resort to the courts there. [Interruption.] The Minister says that the position is different there. Let us learn from the experience of other countries. We will study the Government’s specific proposals in detail today.
	Norgrove recommended that
	“children and young people should be given age-appropriate information to explain what is happening when they are involved in cases.”
	They should be offered a menu of options setting out the ways in which they can do that if they wish. The court process is clearly an important part of that, but I think that we also need greater clarity from the Government on how we can ensure that children’s views are taken on board in the rest of the care system, which includes social workers.
	We have been looking at the issue in our policy review, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the work that she did on it when she was in the shadow education team. Children often stress the importance of the monitoring of placements by social workers, and the importance of being able to talk to their own social worker alone. Often a social worker is a source of constancy—a rock—for a child who is moving between different foster carers or residential homes.
	The second aim of our motion is to ensure that children and young people are given appropriate information and guidance so that they understand the risks of abuse and sexual exploitation. We fear that in too many cases young people may not be clear about how to report instances of abuse or exploitation, and that some may not understand that the acts in which they or their friends are involved constitute sexual abuse. I am sure that we were all shocked by yesterday’s “Channel 4 News” investigation of Habbo Hotel, a very popular website which is used by children as young as 10 and has 250 million users globally.

Claire Perry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling what I think is an incredibly important topic to be debated on the Floor of the House. I only wish that as many Members were present now as were present for the debate that preceded this one, because I think that this one is far more important.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main problems is the accessing by children of inappropriate material on the internet, and does he welcome the Government’s commitment to formally reviewing an opt-in system? Many Members in all parts of the House believe that that would be a step forward, and a very good way of keeping our children safe.

Stephen Twigg: I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks. As she says, that proposal has full cross-party support. My colleagues in the shadow home affairs team made the call, and she has made it as well. I think it vital for us to explore all practical options to ensure that the material that is available is age-appropriate.
	The “Channel 4 News” investigation produced extremely disturbing evidence that children using the Habbo Hotel website are being sexually propositioned and encouraged to engage in inappropriate activities. I understand that the programme’s considerable body of evidence has been passed to the Government, and I should welcome an update from the Minister on what further action they will be taking in response to its investigation.
	Voluntary organisations have a significant role to play in the provision of information, advice and guidance. Many organisations, including Beatbullying and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, have played an important part and will continue to do so. There are also ways in which the media can be used to raise the profile of abuse and how it can be reported. As we know, the overwhelming majority of young people are confident about gaining access to online material, and as the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) pointed out, we need to ensure that that material is age-appropriate as well as accurate. There are obviously ways in which television resources can be used: soap story lines, for example, can be effective. I am certainly not suggesting that Ministers issue instructions regarding the plot lines of “Hollyoaks” or “EastEnders”, but there are smart and subtle ways in which we can raise awareness among young people.
	Schools also have an important role to play, but I fear that the direction taken by the Secretary of State for Education is squeezing well-being out of the school environment. Ofsted is no longer required to measure well-being. The Secretary of State has described it as peripheral or even a distraction from academic education, although evidence shows that it can be an important foundation stone for academic success.
	The third element is to ensure that all local authorities and decision makers are upholding the highest standards. We know there is huge variety within the system. Some places are pressing ahead with reform, while others are struggling with their caseloads and are unable, or even unwilling, to make the necessary changes. There is a widely held view that the Government’s top-down reorganisation of the NHS will mean, to quote Professor Munro, that
	“child protection will get lost by people who do not directly deal with it and so do not fully understand its significance”
	The Government need to clarify exactly where child safeguarding sits within the new NHS structures. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has today said that we need a detailed safeguarding accountability framework from the Department of Heath
	which covers all the safeguarding issues and sets out the roles and responsibilities of each of the new commissioner and provider organisations.
	In local government, there has been real innovation in a number of local authorities to ensure that there is an integrated team for when children enter child protection or the care system.

Debbie Abrahams: Does my hon. Friend agree that multidisciplinary and multi-agency teams, such as Operation Messenger in my constituency, have a key role to play in identifying children and young people at risk from, for example, sexual exploitation? Does he also agree that although the guidance goes some way in the right direction, it does not go far enough? We must support such partnerships and ensure the practices they follow are based on evidence.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is right, and I hope we will have an opportunity in today’s debate and the consultation period the Government have set out to make those very important points so the guidance is stronger than the draft guidance issued yesterday.
	I want to highlight some excellent practice in the London borough of Hackney, which has been well evaluated. Hackney is one of a number of London boroughs that have established MASH—multi-agency safeguarding hub—teams to bring together the key services in one place. London boroughs are leading the way in such respects. Clearly, trustworthy and supportive relationships are key to ensuring a focus on the needs of the child.

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing a debate on this topic. Does he recognise that since the baby P case there has been an increase across both London and the country in the number of children being taken into care? In Haringey there has been a 40% increase. Does he recognise that we still have to do more to encourage parents and carers to contact social services before problems arise, and that there is growing concern about fear in relation to social workers? This hits the most deprived. Social work is not on the whole an area known to Britain’s middle classes.

Stephen Twigg: My right hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on this issue, and makes the case on why the relationships I am talking about are so important. He also, by implication, makes the case for something I shall come to a little later: the importance of enhancing the status of social work as a profession.
	These relationships should, of course, be challenging. Hackney has developed approaches whereby mistakes by people working in the services can be openly acknowledged and addressed without fear of reprisal. That is fostering a culture that should ensure systematic learning, including learning from mistakes. The role of local safeguarding children boards in this process has been invaluable. The boards were originally established by the Children Act 2004, and they bring the key partners together in one place to focus on safeguarding. There is significant variation in the quality and effectiveness of these boards, of course, but I hope the work that is now being done to ensure lessons are learned between them, such as through networks of board chairs, will go
	some way towards addressing that. However, there is concern that in the context of reduced regulation, the Government must remain vigilant to make sure that that learning process moves forward.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend, who is getting to the heart of the matter, share my concern? When I chaired the Select Committee, the inquiries that we did on this subject showed time and time again that people did not learn from their mistakes and that the core management and training were at the heart of all the problems.

Stephen Twigg: That is absolutely right, and I shall come on to one or two of those themes. As a principle, that makes sense, and not only in social work—there are similar lessons in other areas of public service.
	As well as integrated services, I want to emphasise the importance of leadership. Professor Munro has said that local authorities should protect the role of director of children’s services and the lead member for children’s services, as established in the 2004 legislation. There is evidence from some authorities of those roles being combined with other functions, typically adult social care responsibilities. Professor Munro made it clear that she opposed that, and I urge the Minister to respond to her concerns.
	If the Government are to meet their aim of improving professional expertise and flexibility, there is a need, as I have said, to improve the status of the social work profession. The British Association of Social Workers has warned that the proposals set out yesterday do not address sufficiently social workers’ concerns about issues to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) referred—unmanageable case loads, stress, plummeting morale and cuts to administrative support staff. We need to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility and professional expertise in the system, including on the important issue of neglect. Given that extreme, high-profile cases have, understandably, been well publicised, occasionally there is a tendency for the system to, as it were, neglect neglect. Professor Munro has said that the processes are
	“better designed to deal with an urgent concern about an incident of physical or sexual abuse, so neglect, which is about a chronic pattern of parenting, does not come up as a serious case.”

Pat Glass: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Education is carrying out a detailed inquiry on child protection. Although many issues have emerged—and the report has yet to be drafted—there is clear concern about neglect, the inconsistent thresholds across the country for services to families, and the fact that in cases where older children are clearly at risk they do not necessarily get access to the services that they need. Those are three areas of serious concern for the Select Committee.

Stephen Twigg: I know that my hon. Friend raised those matters directly with the Minister when he gave evidence to the Select Committee yesterday. I wish to put on record our appreciation of the detailed work that she and other members of the Select Committee
	have done on this important subject. I am sure that all Members look forward to that report, including its recommendations.
	Services such as ChildLine have done an immense job in identifying the problems facing children and young people, but the increasing work load for its staff—similar to the increasing work load for social workers and council staff—and the fact that the processes for dealing with referrals are often bureaucratic, is something that the Government should address.
	On early intervention, Labour supports the Munro recommendation that a statutory duty should be introduced on local authorities and relevant agencies to secure the provision of early help. Early intervention is vital in the prevention and detection of abuse. These services need to be expanded, but are under a great deal of pressure, not least from spending cuts. I wish to put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) for the excellent work they have done on this very important area of early intervention. They have outlined the importance of early work in identifying challenges and managing to tackle them at an appropriate stage.

Ian Mearns: On that point about early intervention, the Government have marked out a route whereby they want to see special treatment for 120,000 families who meet five of their seven criteria, but the fact that they meet five of those negative criteria almost automatically suggests to me that they are past the point of early intervention.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is taking us into an important territory that merits consideration in a further debate in the House, because those are big challenges we face.

Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks and for the way he has couched the motion, which allows all Members across the House who are concerned about the issue to support what I hope Members on both Front Benches will say today. He talks about early intervention, and obviously there are catastrophic consequences for individuals when things are not done right and social and emotional capability is not given to babies, children and young people, but there are also tremendous economic consequences. Does he agree that if the Chancellor wants an enormous deficit reduction programme, early interventions that mean we do not have the costs of later interventions, which are not only expensive but often only partially successful, suggest that the way to go is to have a little, but early, rather than a lot, wastefully, later?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the point powerfully and better than I could, so I will simply say that I agree entirely.
	There are positive signs that the system has been improving. Three years on from the baby Peter case, a review by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service into care applications found that local authorities are intervening much more quickly and in a much more timely way. However, we are concerned that many essential early intervention services are being cut.
	An important innovation has been the family drug and alcohol court, which provides intensive support to parents alongside a series of carrots and sticks to help them make progress. The close relationship between the court and families can serve to improve the speed of decision making and provide crucial therapeutic help at an early stage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said earlier, it is so important to work with parents to improve parenting skills. Parental support was a key element of Labour’s Sure Start programme, and the national evaluation of Sure Start found greatly improved outcomes for children in Sure Start areas, with more consistent discipline from parents, less chaos at home, parents making more use of local services and fewer children suffering in accidents.
	There is a wealth of evidence on the relationship between domestic violence and child abuse, as the Minister acknowledged yesterday when he appeared before the Select Committee. We are concerned that we have seen a 31% cut in funding for refuges and specialist advice, which is surely undermining action to deal with domestic violence. On the subject of unintended consequences, I have a real concern, which I think has been expressed in the Select Committee’s deliberations, that in some cases the legitimate desire to protect a child from domestic violence can lead to the child being taken away from the non-violent parent, usually the mother. I would be grateful for any further information the Minister has on that.
	Finally, let me say something about the importance of clarifying who is responsible within the Government for implementing the measures included in the new guidance. Professor Munro has said that she feels on occasion that momentum is not being maintained, and I think that, one year after her recommendation to appoint a chief social worker, and three years after that was first proposed, the Government need to move swiftly to appoint someone to that important new post. At the end of her one-year progress report, Professor Munro says that there should be continuing oversight of the whole system so that progress is maintained. The Government need to make it clear who will be responsible for that oversight, and I note that Professor Munro says that it should not be her, but a “fresh person”.

Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend finishes his excellent and even-handed contribution, like those from Members across the parties, will he take it from many of us who have been in the field for a long time that there is a crisis not just of children at risk, but of childhood? There are sometimes unintended consequences, and Opposition Members have been complicit in that, given our attitude that there should be votes at 16—with no attention paid to its implications in terms of shortening childhood. That is an unintended consequence, but two parties in the House had the measure in their election manifestos—with no thought about the implications for the protection that childhood until 18 offers so many children.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend tempts me, as a long-standing supporter of votes at 16, down a different road. I am sure that it was not a consideration in his making the intervention, but it is a debate for another time and place.
	We also need to safeguard the safeguarding system. Studies have shown that the vast majority of care proceedings are appropriate and taken in the best interests of the child, but we need to ensure that there is a suitable mechanism for the occasions when that does not happen. Yesterday the Minister said that he was considering a form of “appeals process” to enable that, and I am sure that the House would be grateful if he could elaborate on his thinking.
	I said at the beginning of this speech that child protection and safeguarding covers a range of issues and Departments, and, in addition to my warnings about unintended consequences and the well-being of children, I am concerned by the Government’s somewhat incoherent approach: on the one hand, Ministers like to lambast local authorities, yet on the other they are removing regulation and placing more power in the hands of local authority social work staff; on the one hand, Ministers say they want to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, but on the other they are introducing adoption scorecards for every local authority; and, on the one hand, Ministers say that early intervention is important, yet on the other they have not taken forward Professor Munro’s recommended statutory duty to do “early work” on child protection.
	The British Association of Social Workers has raised a series of concerns about the state of the profession, particularly case load and the pressures on administration. In a survey that we conducted, more than 80% of the directors of children’s services who responded said that cuts to other services would affect their ability to safeguard children, and in a survey by the BASW 90% of social workers expressed concern that lives “could be at risk” as a consequence of cuts to services. The Government need to explain how they will address those challenges.

Ian Mearns: At a previous session of the Education Committee, when the Secretary of State was in attendance, I asked him whether he thought that it was a good idea for his Department—he being the Secretary of State for Education and children—to undertake an impact assessment of the Government’s proposed benefit changes on the welfare of children and their educational prospects. He subsequently said that he did not think that it was his responsibility, and he was doubtful about the veracity of such assessments anyway. Is that a surprise to my hon. Friend?

Stephen Twigg: It is not, and in my concluding remarks I shall say something about the Department for Education’s broader responsibilities for the well-being of children.
	The Government have to explain how they will address the challenges that I have set, and there needs to be a robust training and continuing professional development framework not only for social workers, but for other staff in the relevant agencies, especially those in the health sector. It is crucial that we have robust supervision of social work practice by experienced senior staff and consultants who are accountable for the exercise of professional judgment. We know that the lack of good supervision was a significant issue in the baby Peter case.

Edward Timpson: If all those in the agencies that are involved in protecting and safeguarding vulnerable children are to be able to do so with the best possible judgments
	that they can make as professionals, they need to learn from mistakes that have been made in the past. We have heard about the horrendous cases of baby P and others, which have led to a number of serious case reviews. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order to make sure that we shine a light on the mistakes that were made in those particularly appalling cases and learn those lessons from the past, it is important that we have full publication of serious case reviews, albeit anonymised in the appropriate places?

Stephen Twigg: I am going to tread carefully on that issue. I am being advised to say yes by my esteemed colleague in the shadow team, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), but I recognise that that would be a change from the position that my predecessor took. I will undertake to look at it and get back to the hon. Gentleman.
	Let me finish by saying something about the Government’s broader policy with regard to children and families. When the Secretary of State took over two years ago, he renamed the Department, removing the words “Children” and “Families”. I am a passionate advocate of innovation, rigour and high standards in our schools and colleagues.

Jessica Lee: rose —

Stephen Twigg: I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I am going to finish because I have spoken for quite a long time.
	There is no contradiction between high standards and promoting the well-being of children; indeed, the two can and should go hand in hand. That was the core ethos of Every Child Matters, yet this Government have moved away from that. An internal DFE memo in 2010 said that reference to the five Every Child Matters outcomes was now forbidden and that the rather nebulous concept, “Help children achieve more”, was to replace it. Achievement is important, but so too is the broader well-being of children and young people. I urge the Government to think again on this. The principles of Every Child Matters are as relevant and powerful in 2012 as they were in 2004. Indeed, they are the principles that lie at the heart of this very important debate. It is a debate that enables the House to consider the Government’s proposals, gives Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to raise questions and concerns on behalf of our constituents, and, above all, should send out a clear, cross-party message that Parliament is determined to do all that we can to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children.

Tim Loughton: Let me first say what a contrast to the previous debate this has been—calm and measured, and about important things that are affecting our constituents and vulnerable children around the country but do not get the airing that they should.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on using an opportunity such as this, as I always did in opposition, to try to flag up these really important issues, which are not terribly fashionable
	in the press or among some of our colleagues but are absolutely crucial to many of our most vulnerable citizens. It is absolutely right that we should do that. The hon. Gentleman raised, in a very measured way, a lot of important matters, most of which I covered in my two-hour grilling in front of the Education Select Committee yesterday, and many of which I will cover in my comments today. Let me pick up just a few of his points. I do not want to speak at length, because other people want to contribute to the debate and that is very important.
	I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Eileen Monro’s report, which was excellent. She had the time and space to come up with some very well-considered proposals instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction to the latest tragedy that had happened. Her report was universally well received. It is a great joy to me to be able to put into practice everything that she recommended. Some of the recommendations are a bit more problematic than others, and with some, just as she took time to consider them, we will take time to come up with the precise nature of the solutions.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the chief social worker. Before this debate, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and I interviewed the four short-listed candidates; in fact, I gather that they interviewed us. There have been some very high-calibre candidates and we hope to be able to appoint that person shortly. I want them working alongside me and the Health Department as soon as possible. That key recommendation from Monro will make a big difference.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the family drug and alcohol court, which Nick Crichton runs. I have sat in it on many occasions. It is fantastic and a really smart way of dealing with very problematic cases. I want to see more of that rolled out. My own authority is looking at a joint venture with Brighton in east Sussex to see whether we can bring it to our part of the country, and there are other examples.
	The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he praised Munro for wanting a child-centred system. The review was entitled, “The Child’s Journey”. We are all here not to make sure that the system works better or that processes are followed more efficiently, but to make sure that the qualitative outcomes—the impact that the system is having on children who need to be helped, safeguarded and put in a safe place—are improved. We often forgot that in the past, which has been one of the weaknesses.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. One of my continuous pushes is on continuous professional development, which he mentioned as well. It is crucial, which is why we put £80 million into social work reform in 2011-12, and why we have some good new social workers coming forward from other walks of life, as well as through training in our universities. We put £23 million into the local social work improvement fund in 2010-11 to support improvement on the front line. We have 3,700 newly qualified or first or second-year social workers who have joined the professional development programme. There are 400 extremely high-calibre people. I have met many of them. I am handing out awards to many of them from the Step Up to Social Work programme.
	There is a great deal going on. Safeguarding children is not a partisan issue, but something that we all want to achieve, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgement that a real momentum is building in efforts to make our children safer—although never completely safe. It is unrealistic, as Professor Munro pointed out, to suggest that we can remove risk and make every child absolutely safe. It would be complacent to think so. Our job in government and the job of those in opposition working with all the professionals around the country is to make children as safe as we possibly can.

Barry Sheerman: rose —

Tim Loughton: I give way to the former Chairman of the Select Committee.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister knows of my interest in the subject and I do not want to upset the apple cart or the bipartisan nature of the debate, but this is not the first such debate that the Secretary of State has not attended. There is a crisis facing children. All the evidence that we have received over the past months suggests that many vulnerable children are in a dreadful situation in our country. We need the leadership of the Secretary of State, to show that he is interested in children’s issues as well as in broader schools and education issues.

Tim Loughton: The Secretary of State is hugely engaged in the issue. I have been around the block a little longer than he has. Having been shadow Minister with responsibility for children, having dealt with safeguarding since 2003 and having been appointed to this position, I perhaps have a little more experience of the subject. When the current Secretary of State took up his position as shadow Secretary of State, his interest and his knowledge of serious case reviews on some safeguarding issues was extraordinary. He has driven the programme and enabled me and others to carry forward the proposals from Munro and others in the way we have. I remind the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that the very first review that was established in the Department for Education under the new Secretary of State was the Munro review on child safeguarding. It was nothing to do with schools or education; it was on child safeguarding. That speaks volumes.

Kevin Brennan: That is good to hear, but when both the Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said that this debate was much more important than the previous one, is it not fair to point out that the Secretary of State chose to attend the beginning of the previous debate, but not to attend this debate?

Tim Loughton: I am sorry that we seem to be descending into the village frippery of the last debate. This debate was announced yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to shift various engagements to attend the House earlier and is not able to attend this debate. He trusts me and my ministerial colleagues to speak about this issue from the Dispatch Box. He follows these issues very closely. The fact that he has put the resources of the Department into ensuring that we have safeguarding improvements that are working is the test of the commitment of this Government, this Secretary of State and this ministerial team to the subject in hand.
	Let us get back to the important business of saying what we have done and responding to the points that have been made. I welcome this opportunity to debate safeguarding children. It is appropriate that we should have this debate now because, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned, only yesterday we launched a consultation on revised statutory guidance, as part of our wider proposals to reform radically the child protection system in England. It is radical reform, and it is also about changing mindsets.
	Before I remind hon. Members of the action that the Government have taken to keep vulnerable children safe, I want to pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the many thousands of professionals, social workers and others around the country who work hard to do just that, for which they receive little recognition and praise in the media or among our constituents. I often refer to social workers as the fourth emergency service. That is not an overestimation. Our reforms are designed to help those professionals to get on with their jobs better and to keep vulnerable children safer.
	Although it is essential to tackle poor practice, I believe that we can and should do a great deal more to celebrate successes and to support those on the front line when they use their professional judgment to take tough decisions. I have met many hundreds of social workers over the past few years and spent a whole week in Stockport as a social worker a little while ago. They have to exercise the judgment of Solomon, often on a daily basis. It is not an exact science. They have to make difficult judgment calls, and we expect them to do so as part of their daily job.
	As many hon. Members will know, the widely welcomed review completed by Eileen Munro last year laid the groundwork for a new approach to child protection. As I have said, it was the first review that we established. We are rapidly turning its recommendations into practice. Professor Munro found that the system had become overwhelmed by prescriptive bureaucracy and box-ticking, and that social workers were spending too much time on form-filling and not enough with families and vulnerable children. Endless procedures had been imposed on professionals to minimise risk, even though it is fanciful to believe that we can wish danger and insecurity away simply by ticking the right boxes. As a result, the professionalism and judgment of frontline staff had been undermined. The most important thing—the central focus on the needs of children—had been largely lost.
	The answer that Professor Munro proposed was simple: we need to get back to basics of best practice. We need to allow social workers to spend more time with children and families, getting to know and understand them and responding to their particular circumstances and needs. As she put it, we need to focus
	“not only on whether we are doing things right but whether we are doing the right thing.”
	We accepted Eileen Munro’s findings and have been acting on them. We are beginning to see the fruits of the change of emphasis. We are seeing greater flexibility, with eight local authorities, including Knowsley and Islington, testing new approaches to the assessment of children’s needs over the past year. We have given them the freedom, through a special dispensation, to set their own local frameworks and to replace rigid time scales with professional judgments based on the needs of each child.
	The feedback from the trials has been encouraging. Social workers are telling us that greater flexibility leads to more quality time with children and families, and better assessments, particularly for families with the most complex needs. Many also feel an enhanced sense of ownership over their work. We are, I hope, restoring confidence to the social work profession, which had taken such a knock.
	Local authorities are telling us that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. They have been reporting back to us about the need to monitor cases robustly to prevent drift. We are seeing a greater practical emphasis on multi-agency working and a drive towards transparency, which is essential in improving services and strengthening public confidence in the work that they do. We are seeing a stronger focus on supervision, with social workers having more time with their managers to discuss complex cases.
	I am also encouraged to see an emerging greater emphasis on learning, another key point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. Increasingly, the sector is taking the lead in sharing lessons from good practice and from when things go wrong. We can learn from mistakes only if we understand how and why they happened, hence our policy on publishing serious case reviews, which I am delighted to hear the Opposition have now come around to. We are also considering how we can improve serious case reviews to make them more effective tools for learning lessons that are widely shared and that lead to action and sustainable improvements. That could not happen while only very limited executive summaries were in the public domain.
	Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we announced a further important step in our overhaul of the child protection system in England. It is a measure at the heart of the Munro recommendations: the revised “working together” strategy. That new statutory guidance for safeguarding children will help create a new culture of trust among health professionals, teachers, early years professionals, youth workers, police and social workers.
	We have published three draft documents for consultation—and it will indeed be a consultation. Some of the points made by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, as well as others that the hon. Gentleman raised, absolutely need to be fed into that consultation. That was why we did not just plough ahead, much though Eileen Munro was urging us to do so. We want to get things right, just as she got her recommendations right. We want to ensure that we put them into practice in the right way so that they work properly.
	Our three draft documents will replace more 700 pages of detailed instructions with 68 pages of short, precise guidance and checklists. They will be punchy but clear and give professionals space in which to exercise their professional judgment. The revised guidance proposes giving local areas more freedom to organise their services in a way that suits local needs. It will allow more face-to-face time with children and families, which is crucial, and provide a clear framework within which professionals must operate.
	The first document, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, clearly states the law so that all organisations know what they and others must do to protect children.
	It does not tell GPs and other health professionals, teachers, police and social workers exactly how to do their job, but it provides a checklist setting out their duties and what is expected of them. It also sets out how the role and impact of local safeguarding children boards can be strengthened. As the hon. Gentleman said, they are crucial to the reforms, and they play an absolutely vital role in holding local agencies to account and getting all the key players around the same table and talking the same language.
	The second document is new guidance on undertaking assessments of children in need. Informed by evidence from the eight trial local authorities, it proposes replacing nationally prescribed timetables with a more flexible approach. That approach will be focused, as it should be, on the needs of each child. It will absolutely do what the motion asks for—it will put the child’s needs, rather than compliance with inflexible time scales and recording processes, at the centre of assessment.
	The third document is new guidance on learning and improvement, to help all services learn the lessons from serious case reviews. It comes from our strong belief that serious case reviews need to be much more strongly focused on learning, rather than process, and that the reports must be published so that lessons can be shared nationally and locally. In those reviews, we need to get to the heart of what went wrong and what action at what point by which individual led to a decision being made that might have contributed to a tragedy.
	The approach behind those three new documents has rightly been welcomed. Professor Munro has said:
	“We are finally moving away from the defensive rule-bound culture that has been so problematic. I believe an urgent culture change in our child protection system is now underway.”
	Anne Marie Carrie, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, has said:
	“We support changing the emphasis within the system to enable professionals to take responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of the most vulnerable children.”

Ian Mearns: At the same time as doing the work that he is undertaking to do, has the Minister given any additional thought to updating the legal definition of neglect? I believe that next year is the 80th anniversary of that definition as it is currently enshrined in law.

Tim Loughton: We had this conversation yesterday in the Select Committee on Education, of course, and I said that in response to the Action for Children report we had examined closely whether there needed to be an update to the law, which goes back to the 1933 definition. We were strongly advised that we did not need to change the law, which the courts and children’s services are interpreting in a contemporary way. As I was speaking yesterday, we were putting on the website a neglect toolkit, designed with Action for Children and the university of Stirling. It includes some practical tools for detecting, intervening and dealing with cases of neglect. That is a much more practical way to achieve real results now.
	Revising statutory guidance is clearly not the only thing we need to do—far from it. The consultation forms part of a much wider programme of reforms that includes Ofsted’s new inspection framework, which began in May 2012 and has a stronger focus on the quality of practice and the effectiveness of help provided to children.
	It is much more children-centred. From June 2013, the planned new joint inspections will make a further important difference by looking at the contribution of all local agencies to keeping children safe. We are reforming inspection so that it makes judgments about the things that really matter, and so that it looks at how agencies work together to safeguard children more from the perspective of the qualitative outcomes for the child.

Laura Sandys: Does my hon. Friend agree that moving looked-after children from one local authority to another creates greater difficulty, namely ensuring that case notes are transferred and that the conversation between the different agencies is sustained? When children are moved, their longer-term safety is eroded because of the distance and lack of contact between the source local authority and the receiving one.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend knows exactly what I think about that—we have discussed it at length. She has become something of expert in this matter because it is an issue in her constituency, as it is in mine. As a result of her approaches and events in Rochdale and other alarming cases, we will announce shortly, as I told the Committee yesterday, the results of the additional work done by the Deputy Children’s Commissioner on how we ensure that children are placed out of area only when appropriate, and when they can be safely and appropriately looked after. That should happen at the moment, but it does not in practice. The sufficiency principle, which we have overhauled once, needs more work. I will be happy to make those announcements in detail within the next few weeks, because this is a serious matter.
	I want to get to the end of this speech so that other hon. Members can contribute, so I am going to talk fast, as I often do. The motion calls for early intervention programmes
	“to be promoted on the best available evidence”.
	We know that the earlier help is given to vulnerable children and families, the more chance there is of turning lives around and protecting children from harm. We are therefore continuing to work with children’s services, police and the NHS to shift the focus on to earlier intervention and early help.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tim Loughton: I was trying to get on, but I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
	We know that continuing such work will help to tackle childhood neglect, which is the most common category of abuse under which children become the subject of child protection plans.

Andrea Leadsom: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend. I just want to be helpful. Does he agree that having more early prevention programmes—including, for example, psychotherapists to whom social workers could on-refer—would help to back-solve the problem of the overloading of social workers and health visitors? If we had such programmes, social workers and health visitors would
	have somebody who could deal with the problems, support them and enable them to release some of the burden of their case load.

Tim Loughton: I have known my hon. Friend for more than 30 years and she has never been anything but helpful. Her work on early prevention, which is germane to the Government’s work on neglect and early help, absolutely confirms that the sooner we can detect problems, such as detachment, deficiency and others—the work with troubled families is important in this respect—the more likely we are to step in at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner to avoid such problems leading to greater harm to a child. She is absolutely right, as she knows, and as she knows I know.
	Understanding families and the experiences of children within them can be complex and signs of what appears to be low-level neglect can be misleading. Yesterday, as I have said, we published materials commissioned from Action for Children and the University of Stirling to help on that.
	We are already seeing some notable successes from earlier intervention. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is no longer in the Chamber, for his work on that. For example, the integrated access team in Suffolk is taking and handling quickly cases that would previously have been dealt with by children’s social care, with a £7 million saving on top of better social outcomes for those children. Tower Hamlets is operating a multi-agency integrated pathway and support team to deliver early help, reducing by 50% the number of referrals to children’s social care. That is happening in practice, and we now want more of it around the country.
	As the motion indicates, it is important that professionals know what early intervention works best. To support them in that, the Government have recently invited bids for the establishment of an early intervention foundation and we expect the foundation to operate independently of central Government to support the needs of local commissioners and to build a solid evidence base.
	I referred at the start of my speech to the importance of a high quality social work work force. Building on the work of the social work taskforce established by the previous Administration, we have focused heavily on improving the capacity and capability of the social work profession. In 2011-12 we invested £80 million in a national programme of social work reform to improve skills for social workers and tackle high vacancy rates in child protection. Together, all those reforms will shift the child protection system from a culture of compliance to a culture in which children and families are at the centre and social workers and other key professionals spend less time in front of their computer screens and more time face to face with vulnerable families and children, which is what we all want to see.
	The motion rightly refers to the importance of young people understanding the risks of abuse and sexual exploitation. Tackling child sexual exploitation is a major priority for the Government and it has been at the top of our agenda over the past 12 months. Back in May last year, I made a speech at a Barnardo’s event in which I highlighted the importance of its “Puppet on a string” report. I said then that sexual exploitation of children
	“is happening here and it is happening now”
	and I went on to say that
	“I think it’s a much bigger problem than it may appear now on our radar.”
	I fear I was only too right and that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
	For far too long, the issue was something of a taboo in this country. It was little spoken about, little appreciated and little acknowledged or dealt with. Few local authorities had much idea about how prevalent child sexual exploitation was in their areas and, as a result, there was a real and tragic failure to grasp the scale of the problem. The high profile verdicts in the recent Rochdale case and others show that the situation is changing. The country is at last waking up to the fact that child sexual exploitation is a real problem in this country, but although the issue has been extensively discussed and debated in the media, there is still a good deal of misunderstanding about it.
	Much of the coverage of the case in Rochdale focused on the fact that the perpetrators were British Asian men and the victims white teenage girls. We must not shy away from difficult issues about culture—I have said that on many occasions—and the Rochdale case does raise very troubling questions about the attitude of the perpetrators, all but one of whom were from Pakistani backgrounds, towards white girls, but it would be mistaken, and dangerous, to assume that that is the form that child sexual exploitation generally takes. We know that perpetrators of that appalling crime and their victims can be found in all backgrounds, in all parts of the country and in all social and ethnic sets. As Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy Children’s Commissioner, told the Select Committee on Home Affairs yesterday, this is not just a crime that takes place in northern metropolitan boroughs. She quoted a police officer from a
	“lovely, leafy, rural part of the country”
	who told her that
	“there isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited”.
	We owe a debt of gratitude to several organisations and individuals for putting the issue on the map, such as Safe and Sound Derby and, in particular, Sheila Taylor, to whom I pay tribute. Barnardo’s also did an enormous amount to raise awareness through its excellent report and its continuing “Cut them free” campaign. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre carried out a major assessment last year and reported practitioners telling it
	“if you lift the stone, you’ll find it”.
	There are many others, including many local projects and voluntary organisations, with whom my Department continues to work closely. We acted, I brought together all the major players and in November of last year we produced the tackling child sexual exploitation action plan. That is one of the pieces of work in my Department of which I am most proud, and it is beginning to have an effect. It is intended to lift the lid on the true nature and extent of this crime and to set out practical responses to it, and as a result many practical measures are already coming into force, although we need many more to take effect.
	We identified four key stages where we needed better intervention. We need better awareness among children and their parents. We need better multi-agency action
	to intervene so that we can help children and families who are caught up in sexual exploitation. Once they have been rescued from it, we need to help them get their lives back on track. Finally, we must secure robust prosecutions and improve court processes to ensure support for victims and their families, including ensuring that we do not retraumatise teenage girls and other victims, who have to go through the whole episode in court in front of a phalanx of defence barristers. That is why the Attorney-General’s influence and involvement are really important. We must and can do better and shortly we will publish a progress report on how a range of Government Departments and national and local organisations are implementing the action plan.
	Hon. Members will also be aware that last month the Secretary of State asked the Deputy Children’s Commissioner to provide him with an accelerated report from her office’s inquiry into child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups. Although it is clear that most children who are sexually exploited are not in care, we know that children who are in care are disproportionately represented in the numbers of victims of this crime. The Secretary of State asked particularly for recommendations on how to keep children in care homes safe from this abuse. We have just received that accelerated report, and we will publish it within a matter of weeks alongside the updated progress report, into which some of the findings from Sue Berelowitz’s report will be factored and, as a result, some urgent streams of work will emerge.
	We are already taking action on children missing from care, and it is clear that the figures the police and my Department publish are not consistent. That is simply not acceptable. We are now working with the police and local authorities to bring a more consistent approach to figures collected nationally and locally. We need to know the extent of the problem so we can challenge poorly performing local authorities and come up with the right solutions.
	I am particularly grateful for the work the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) is carrying out through the all-party parliamentary group inquiry into children missing from care. I look forward to receiving its report next week and will consider its recommendations very closely. I have promised that it will inform the new guidance we are looking to publish in that area.
	Of course, safeguarding children in care is only one aspect of our wider reform programme to transform the care system and improve outcomes for the most vulnerable children. Key is ensuring placement stability and good parenting—as we have heard from hon. Members today—whether through adoption, foster care or children’s homes. We also want to improve the support given to care leavers, another group vulnerable to sexual exploitation. We must ensure that children who leave care live in good accommodation and are well supported.
	The reference in the motion to multi-agency working has a particular relevance in relation to tackling child sexual exploitation. Local safeguarding children boards have an absolutely central role in overseeing much of the work set out in our action plan. There is growing evidence that LSCBs and local authorities are getting a better picture of child sexual exploitation in their areas and taking steps to address it. But it is clear that some are still not giving this issue the priority it requires. They need to do so without further delay.
	There is one final area that I want to mention in particular. Improving the safety of children who use the internet is an urgent priority, including reducing the risk of harm through contact with strangers and the viewing of harmful content. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned a particularly horrific site that was raised yesterday. The Government are working, through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety or UKCCIS, which I chair jointly with a Home Office Minister, to help to keep children and young people safer online. The council is focused on practical action, both by individual members, and collectively.
	We have made real progress across a number of areas. The four major internet service providers have signed a code of practice that will see by October 2012 all new broadband customers presented with an unavoidable choice of whether to activate parental controls. Major retailers and manufacturers of internet-enabled devices such as mobile phones, laptops and internet-enabled TVs are developing solutions to increase the availability and awareness of parental controls at point of sale. UKCCIS has also published advice and guidance for internet companies to use so that parents get consistent information about keeping their children safe on the internet.
	In conclusion—

Jenny Chapman: Will the Minister give way?

Tim Loughton: All right, but I am really trying to finish.

Jenny Chapman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hesitated to intervene, given the speed at which he was going, but I did not want to miss the chance to raise with him a very real concern for people in Darlington about registered sex offenders. At the moment, offenders are not required to register their online identities as a matter of course. Sexual offences prevention orders are used to do this job, but it is not a requirement as a matter of course. When people have a known history of child abuse and deliberate grooming, it is very important that they are required to register their online identities as a matter of course.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Rather than go into detail now and take more time from Back Benchers, I would be happy to look into it if she would like to have a conversation with me and send me some details.
	This is a huge, complex but deeply important subject and one that must remain a key priority for the Government and the Department in particular. The documents we published yesterday are intended to help create the new culture that we are determined to see. It is a culture that is not overly focused on compliance and dependency on central prescription and guidance; in which front-line professionals who work to keep children safe from harm no longer have their judgment stifled by what has all too often been pointless—albeit well intentioned—bureaucracy, made up of unnecessary rules and targets; and which has the needs and well-being of the child at its centre. It is apparent from the motion that the Government and the Opposition share the same goals in relation to the safeguarding of children, and I believe that the important reforms I have outlined will be
	welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate again the shadow Secretary of State on bringing this important subject before a slightly reduced audience in the Chamber today, because it is really important to a much bigger audience outside the House.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the level of interest, I have had to impose an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, with immediate effect, and although it is not obligatory not to take interventions, some self-denial over the number and length of interventions would help us to achieve our objective of getting everybody in.

Jessica Lee: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, to speak in this extremely important and timely debate on safeguarding children. I, too, welcome the motion, which is wide-ranging and will enable Members from across the House with different expertise and experience to contribute to what we all wish to do—protect children. I also welcome the timely statutory guidance that the Minister set out yesterday for bringing together the threads of the Government’s work on child protection. I must also declare an interest, having had 12 years’ experience as a family law barrister specialising in child protection, which although not making me an expert, has given me an insight into the work of child protection professionals.
	Let us consider why the Government are prioritising child protection. A couple of startling statistics speak for themselves. Last year, 382,400 children-in-need requests were recorded and more than 600,000 referrals were made to social workers. Those are huge numbers that we all must reflect on. I know that all Members will be working with families and social work professionals, through their constituency casework, in trying to combat the problem of damaged children.
	I want to cover early intervention, on which Members have already commented, the sexual exploitation of children, and the need to inform young people of the risks and to empower child protection professionals to provide the necessary support to vulnerable families. It is difficult to go much further, however, without mentioning the report by Professor Eileen Munro. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and my hon. Friend the Minister for covering the report in detail—there is little to add to what they said. We all welcome the detail of this wide-ranging report, which I understand was the first to be commissioned under the coalition Government by the Department for Education. That sent out a clear signal that the Government intended to prioritise child protection and, in particular, to support the professionals.
	I do not want to go through many more statistics, and certainly I do not want to emphasise the differences between the main political parties. So far, the debate has brought us together on this important issue, and I wish to continue with that. It is right, however, to give examples of why these changes are needed. In family courts over the years, I have represented hard-working social work teams, children themselves, through their guardians, and the parents, and too often I have seen social workers desperately trying to complete the paperwork necessary to facilitate a child’s move into care. At these
	crucial times, however, those social workers need the ability to exercise their professional judgment in weighing up the options for the children—possibly the division of a sibling group—and assessing the emergency situation.
	Perhaps one of the most extreme examples of where a court has to consider a child’s future is the grave situation where there is a risk of harm right from birth. Such cases are extremely troubling and distressing for everyone concerned. They involve not just questions of logistics, but the exercise of professional judgment on the part of the social work team about how to plan and facilitate the removal of the child from birth, if that is required. Such cases require the ultimate exercise of judgment by professionals, at a time when they do not need to be worrying about the paperwork that goes alongside such decisions. I hope that the reforms will go a long way to change that.
	Both Front Benchers raised concerns about child neglect. In my experience, the cases involving neglect are often the hardest to read—that is, to determine the chronology and the facts. That is probably because complex cases of sexual abuse are so far removed from the experience of most people in this country that they are difficult to relate to. However, unclean clothes, not being washed, a lack of love and care in the home, feelings of hunger—something I always try to avoid—and physical neglect are concepts that, on some level, we can perhaps all relate to, and we all know what they must be like for a young child with no ability whatever to protect themselves. The emphasis on child neglect and the need to empower professionals to sustain change within homes—not just to make referrals, but to keep supporting families—is extremely important. Tackling neglect is also about encouraging all adults across society and about not being frightened to make referrals. All of us can do more on this issue. I know that social work teams would rather have 10 calls about a family when there are concerns about neglect than have no calls at all.
	That brings me to another aspect of this debate: the need for a multi-agency approach, which is also highlighted in the motion. In my experience, improvements have already been made, following the baby Peter Connelly case, to address the need to bring multi-agency work together at the earliest stage. However, we now need to look at sharing paperwork and information. Is there anything more we can do to make the system effective for the longer term? Neglect is also related to the need for early intervention, which has also been raised this afternoon. It is an issue that I have mentioned in the House on a number of occasions. We are grateful for our experience of addressing the issue and for the reports that hon. Members have prepared on it.
	I see that time is against me. There is more that I wanted to say, but to conclude, I see genuine momentum in the safeguarding of children. We now have an evidence-based approach supporting the social work profession and the toolkit to move things forward, so that we can assist the professionals and parents in the community through early intervention. Ultimately, that will protect the children who need the help which all of us in this place are concerned about.

Simon Danczuk: Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, on initiating this debate. It is truly timely, not least because of the Rochdale grooming case. Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, following that case, the public would expect this issue to be discussed on the Floor of the House, so it is right and proper that we should be having this debate.
	I have to confess that this is not an issue on which I am an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it is fair to say that in the last few months I have learned much about it. I want to concentrate on the Rochdale grooming case, how these horrific crimes came about, what lessons can be learned and how we need to go about learning them. It is right and proper that the starting point for any discussion on this type of issue should be the victims. Let us be clear: the victims in this case—these vulnerable girls—went to hell and back, in terms of what they experienced at the hands of their abusers and the court case that they had to go through. They were passed around the perpetrators and repeatedly raped. They were continually abused and treated absolutely appallingly.
	It is interesting that, after the trial, professionals involved in the care of children were saying that the girls were from chaotic families, as though that explained why they had not been cared for. I accept that the parents of those children must take some responsibility, but the local authorities involved were those children’s guardians, and they failed to guard them. The perpetrators sometimes referred to the girls as prostitutes, and it was interesting that some of the social services staff referred to them in the same way. Those girls did not stand a chance.
	Three weeks ago, two health workers who had been heavily involved in the case came to see me at my constituency office to describe their experience. They said that social services managers believed that the girls had been making life choices, which is why they were seen as prostitutes. Some of the social services staff who were dealing with the girls clearly had low expectations of them. The health workers told me that although one of the girls—their client—had presented with multiple sexually transmitted infections, the council would not intervene or escalate her care. They also told me that one 13-year-old girl had asked to go into secure care to escape from the abuse. Social services responded that she was too disruptive, and that it would cost too much. Let us be clear: those health professionals were working with children who were pressing for greater intervention, more action and more intensive care, yet none of that was forthcoming. The abuse continued for years. Vulnerable girls got pregnant by their abusers, and lives continued to be ruined. That is the reality.
	Yesterday, we started to hear the defence—not the defence of the perpetrators, but that of some of the agencies involved in the case. Rochdale council and Greater Manchester police gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I pay tribute to the scrutiny role fulfilled by the Chairman and the members of the Committee. We heard council representatives saying that there needed to be a change in the law, because data-sharing had been a problem in the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth
	(Alun Michael), a Committee member, pointed out that legislation in the late 1990s had enabled agencies to share all the data that needed to be shared in order to prevent a crime. In fact, such agencies are obliged to share information to prevent such crimes. Sharing data should not have been an issue. The health workers I met had made it clear that this was not about sharing data; it was about their concerns being ignored by social services. We do not need to change the law; rather, the council needs to change its culture.
	During a conversation that I had with a senior officer two months ago, before the sentencing in the case, she described on-street grooming as a new phenomenon. It is no such thing. Senior officers also said that they had only just received guidance on this matter from central Government, as though they needed such guidance to intervene to stop those perpetrators abusing those girls, or to take more responsibility for them. The Select Committee also heard from the chief constable of Greater Manchester police. I want to put on the record that Greater Manchester police did an excellent job of prosecuting this grooming case. It should be noted that they have apologised for the errors they made in the attempted prosecution of 2008.
	One of the chief constable’s defences for what happened—or did not happen—in 2008 was that he was concerned about these vulnerable girls going through the court system, as he thought it would be a harrowing experience. The problem with that argument is, first, that the girls were probably not consulted on whether they wanted to go through a court case; and, secondly, and more importantly, that they continued to be abused because they did not go to court. Which is worse: going through a court case or continuing to be abused?
	The Crown Prosecution Service, too, clearly failed in 2008 and has apologised for it. It needs to be said that no thorough investigation took place, so we do not know who it was who took the decision not to prosecute and we do not know whether disciplinary action has been taken. This is a public body, and I believe that greater transparency needs to be applied to it.
	A whole range of issues is at stake. Investigations by the local authority and by the local safeguarding children board are going on, but let me reassure the House and the public that any cover-up in this instance will not be accepted. I have been assured by the Minister and the Prime Minister that action will be taken to get to the bottom of this. I hope that that happens.

John Hemming: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on his very good speech, much of which needs to be listened to and understood. It is not that we do not have the right laws in place; it is that the professional judgments made by practitioners are often basically not common sense.
	Let me declare a declaration of interest on account of my involvement in the Justice for Families campaign. What I tend to see are the over-interventions, where the state intervenes improperly.
	Returning to the issues of Rochdale, I raised a number of years ago the situation of a children’s home in Birmingham, where the practitioners did not mind if
	the children were prostitutes but did mind if they made toast for each other—because there was a health and safety risk to making toast.
	I have made the effort to get the statutory guidance. If the motion supported the statutory guidance, I would probably have to vote against it, because it goes no further in looking at the definition of what is a risk of significant harm. It is quite clear that certain practitioners do not believe that being a prostitute is a risk of significant harm. [Interruption.] That seems to be the case, and it is not necessarily a UK-only situation. A family currently living in Wimbledon had similar problems in New Zealand where an under-age relationship was encouraged by the practitioners in that country because they thought it was right. That was on the New Zealand media last week.

Ian Mearns: In the Rochdale case and others I have read about, the abuse perpetrated against young girls has been so systematic and has lasted over such a prolonged period that the girls themselves did not see themselves as victims. In that scenario, who is going to look after them? We must think deeply about the implications of that problem.

John Hemming: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent intervention, but I shall not take any more because of the Speaker’s advice.
	Let me explain one of my concerns about the Government’s complacency on this issue. We have the SSDA903 return, which tracks what happens to children as they leave care. A number of possible destinations are listed: for example, adopted; died; care taken by another local authority, and so forth. There are also those who leave care for an unknown reason. In America, this is tracked to find out who has run away. These are children who have been abducted and trafficked. Across the country, we find that 5,950 children left care for unknown and other reasons. Of those, 430 were aged one to four; 350 were aged five to nine; 630 were aged 10 to 15, and there were many more at the ages of 16, 17 and 18. I have the detailed figures for my local authority, if anyone wants to see them.
	What is sad is the fact that the Minister has refused to consider trying to gain more detailed information so that we know what happens to these children. If I were losing 5,000 children here, not knowing what was happening to them—rather similar to the situation in Rochdale—I would not be feeling very happy as a corporate parent or as a parent in any form whatever. The failure is in not having proper systems of checks and balances on the judgment of practitioners who operate on a daily basis.
	There are some excellent practitioners. I know of one social worker who was recently suspended because she would not change her view that a child should go back to its parents. The management tried to bully her into agreeing that the child should be adopted, but she would not do that, so she was suspended. We should be looking at what those managements are doing, and establishing whether it is valid. We know that much of the evidence is unreliable as a result of the excellent work of Professor Jane Ireland, which is the only proper independent work that has been done to assess the quality of evidence in the family courts.
	I have here a letter from the Health Professions Council, which is refusing to investigate allegations
	about bad psychologists. Giving the reference FTP04616, the HPC says that it cannot “progress the concern” because of the current law. I think that it misunderstands the law: I think that the 2009 changes enable it to investigate allegations about rubbishy psychologists without the permission of a judge.
	We have a problem with checks and balances, and with the failure of quality control in respect of evidence and the family courts. However, we also need to look at the wider issues of why children are taken into care. The failure of the statutory guidance to go beyond “risk of significant harm” implies that there is a real problem. The care system is very complex and involves very subtle judgments, but the Government come along wearing big boots and try to kick it in a particular direction.
	Puerperal psychosis involves extreme baby blues or post-natal depression. When a mother has given birth and is depressed it can be dangerous for the child, who may need to be taken into care; but is that the sort of case that should be driven towards adoption, just because mum was depressed after giving birth? Such action is likely to make mum even more depressed. The Government’s policy is, “We need to speed it all up: we need rapid decisions.” The flaw in their approach is that there is none of the individual judgment on cases that is really needed. It is a very simplistic approach to what is a very complex system.
	Domestic violence is another example. Angela Wileman is writing a book about what happened to her. She has been to Spain, Ireland and all over the place to avoid the UK care system, which was persecuting her in various ways. She has been in the newspapers plenty of times. She was a victim of domestic violence, on the basis of which the system wished to take one of her children from her, put that child in care and have it adopted—but only that child, because she had had the other child abroad.
	Ms Toni McLeod, who lives with her family in Durham, is thinking of going to Ireland because she is pregnant. It is a difficult situation. She was a supporter of the English Defence League. I hate the EDL. Three of my children are mixed-race, and I protest against the EDL. Toni McLeod says that she is not racially prejudiced, but that children were taken from her partly because of her membership of the EDL. It was
	“felt that conversations and opinions may be expressed in the children’s presence.”
	That is a “thought police” approach to care. The system intervened because of what Toni McLeod might say in front of her children. She says that she has many friends who are Muslims and Sikhs, and that she disowns the EDL nowadays, but whether that is true or not, we should ask whether it is appropriate for the state to remove a child because children may be radicalised by a parent. Is that an appropriate use of the phrase “risk of significant harm”? That brings us back to the statutory guidance, which makes no effort whatsoever to give any indication of what is meant by the phrase.
	One of the biggest problems in relation to the accountability of the family court and the care system is insufficient proper, academic access to the details of the proceedings. We do not know whether we are achieving something for the children or not. An excellent report
	by Ruth Gilbert, published in
	The Lancet 
	late last year, raised major questions about whether we are getting anywhere at all with the overall system. We have some extremely serious problems, and in my view the interventions are often damaging.
	I work with a number of care leavers. It is important to remember that care leavers remain care leavers even when they are in their forties and fifties. As people get older, they gain the confidence that enables them to speak out about what happened to them when they were younger, whereas many people in their late teens and early twenties do not have enough confidence to explain where the real problems lay. We need to be very careful. Lucy Allan may be going to speak to the Minister about her experience. She was a Conservative councillor. The same psychologist wrote two different reports about her, which was complete nonsense, of course. If a specialist of some kind writes two completely contradictory reports about the same person, what intellectual value does any of that information have?
	Although I have a lot more to say on this subject, I only have 54 seconds left, so let me just put on the record that the Education Committee has done an excellent job in listening to people on different sides of the argument. The family justice review panel included only people who operated the system. It therefore did not properly consider the views of those who are affected by the system. The Home Affairs Committee will kick off an inquiry that I hope will be run on a far better basis. The Munro report is quite good, but we need to look more rationally at the detailed ways in which things are operated and make sure steps are taken that actually benefit the children in the long term, not just hit Government targets.

Yasmin Qureshi: First, I thank the Labour Front-Bench team and the Leader of the Opposition for choosing this subject for an Opposition day debate. I agree with everything the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), has said and with his recommendations. I also welcome the Minister’s comments.
	I shall focus on one particular type of abuse: the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and young persons. We all know that happens, but many people do not appreciate how often it happens, the numerous ways in which it happens and how many victims there are throughout the country. There are thousands of victims. That is not difficult for people like me to realise, because before entering Parliament I was a barrister practising the criminal law. I prosecuted and defended people, and I represented parents whose children were being taken into local authority care. Therefore, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said about what happens in care cases and, sometimes, the attitude of Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service workers, those appointed by the courts and all the establishment involved. There are always conflicts and sometimes local authorities do not put the best interests of the children first. They get too bogged down in rules and procedures.
	I was pleased to hear yesterday’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee given by Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy Children’s Commissioner. She has conducted a
	two-year inquiry into the grooming and abuse of children. One of the first questions she was asked was about the Rochdale case. She was asked whether such cases were a particular issue for a particular community. Her answer was no, it was a question of a pattern of abuse. She then went on to explain that there are different patterns of abuse by different groups of people across the country. She mainly talked about men abusing young women, but there is also the issue of abuse of young boys, which we in society hardly ever talk about. That type of abuse is hardly ever weighed in the scales when we compare different types of abuse.
	Such points are important to make in the context of the Rochdale case. We do not want people thinking, “It’s just one little issue involving one community, so we can forget about it.” Such cases have nothing to do with race or particular communities. The key point is the types of people who are vulnerable in any given circumstance. It is a question of who is available. If Asian or Afro-Caribbean girls had been available in Rochdale, they would have been just as likely to be abused. Sue Berelowitz also said:
	“There isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited.”
	She added:
	“We should start from the assumption that children are being sexually exploited right the way across the country”,
	including in
	“urban, rural and metropolitan areas”.
	Sue Berelowitz gave an example of something that is happening in London. She said that there are parts of London where girls as young as 11 are expected to perform oral sex on a line-up of boys for up to two hours. She said that is was
	“common for girls to be lured via internet chatrooms to meet a friend, only to be met by a group of boys and gang-raped in the park.”
	She said that another group would then take part in the rape of those children. She said:
	“I wish I could say to you that such things are uncommon but I’m afraid that they are quite common.”
	She went on to say that
	“what is being done is so terrible that people need to lay aside their denial”,
	or that there was a risk of victims being disbelieved. She said:
	“Victims number in the thousands not the hundreds.”
	She went on to talk about the role played by the internet in the exploitation of children and abuse of young people.
	Yesterday, Peter Davies, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said in the Select Committee on Home Affairs that children are accessing the web at a far younger age. He said that he would score the public sector only five out of 10 on its ability to protect children from abuse. He claimed that, on average, one child in 20 was a victim of sexual abuse. From my personal knowledge of the cases with which I dealt for many years, that is a far more realistic statistic than people may think, as the problem of sexual abuse is rife.
	We have discussed internet grooming, paedophiles going on the internet, street grooming and the trafficking of victims, although they tend to be adults, but we do
	not discuss sexual abuse in the home. People do not realise the extent of that type of abuse or that young boys are often victims of sexual abuse. Boys being boys, they do not come out and speak out about it and often do not want to discuss their emotions, either because they do not want to be accused of being cowards or of being weak. They may be ashamed or embarrassed. As a society, we talk about female victims, and do not often talk about male victims. I recently had a conversation with my chief superintendant at Bolton police station. I said, “Have the police done anything to educate or talk to chief officers throughout the country to urge them to look at the question of how to reach out to young male victims, talk to them and encourage them so that they know that it is okay for them to talk about their abuse?”
	We have heard about some cases of abuse, and I have prosecuted people who have abused young boys, but there is a much bigger picture, so I urge the Minister—I am sure that there is joined-up working between different departments—to see whether the police and other agencies can be asked to make a positive effort to engage with young males, ascertain their problems and let them know that they are recognised as victims and that they are just as vulnerable and need as much protection as young girls.

Jim Shannon: A prominent issue in the news and media over the past few weeks, perhaps because of the number of cases that have come to court, is children’s access to pornography. That seems to have been going on for a period of time. Does the hon. Lady think that it is time for the Government to take action to prevent that access and provide encouragement for parents?

Yasmin Qureshi: I entirely agree, and I hope that the Minister has heard that. School teachers, head teachers, social services and the police and everyone else needs to be aware that this happens, and that it is a lot more common than we think.
	I shall conclude with a case of sexual abuse in which the victim did not realise that what they were doing was wrong. Many years ago in Feltham a case of incest by a father on his daughter came to light, and it did so only when the father was working on his car in the front garden and the daughter, who was about 13, came out and said, “Do you want a quickie?” A neighbour who was entering his house at the time heard the comment and contacted social services, and as a result all the agencies got involved and the whole truth came out about how the girl had been violated by her father for many years, but she did not know that what had been happening was wrong and so was able to talk about it publicly. That shows the extent of the abuse that is taking place, so I really ask that much more attention is paid to the sexual abuse of children across all groups.

Damian Hinds: This issue is a matter of the most profound importance. From time to time it is jolted to the top of the media agenda in the most awful way, as happened with Victoria Climbié, Peter Connelly and the Rochdale case. Although it might top the headlines only periodically, its extent is vast and always with us. On the Select Committee’s recent visit to Doncaster, I was taken aback by the sheer
	physical scale of the call centre operation dealing with calls from the public and practitioners and data entry just for that local authority area and to hear about the huge number of households in the city that social workers call on regularly. We know that in the year to 2011 there were more than 600,000 referrals to children’s social services nationally and 49,000 child protection plans initiated. As for some of the other types of abuse, such as online abuse and child-on-child abuse, we can really only start to guess at their extent.
	There have of course been positive developments, which it is important to acknowledge. A number of Members have mentioned what an encouraging sign it was that the first report to be commissioned after the change of Government was the Munro report, which contains a lot of useful material. The formation of the MASH teams—the multi-agency service hubs—is clearly a development that can hopefully deliver great benefits, but we must be careful not to identify a silver bullet and think that it will solve all problems.
	I hope that the Government’s troubled families programme will also signal a further positive development in this area. People go on about the 120,000 families, but it is worth noting that, in fact, there are not 120,000 families who will receive additional help that is not available to others—the 120,000 figure is a statistical construct that comes from analysis done under the previous Government and the Cabinet Office report. The initiative is about encouraging local authorities to work together and having a lead person operating on behalf of each family to try to join up services.
	The other thing I welcome is the motion and the way it unites both sides of the House. My only complaint, and a tiny one, is that with a little more notice we could have got more hon. Members here. I also want to pay tribute to social workers. Clearly, social work is not a job they do for the glamour, kudos or cash; it is a hugely difficult job, sometimes done in the most horrendous circumstances. Social workers should expect our constant support and acknowledgment for the difficult job they do. As Eileen Munro said, and as the Minister repeated today, their job is all about trying to predict the ability of a parent to bring up their child and to protect the child, and at the best of times that is an inexact science. I think that elevating the status of the profession in every way we can is vital, and that includes things such as the chief social worker and a properly founded college of social work.
	There will always be a tension between trying to standardise approaches on the one hand and trying to devolve decision making on the other, and the pendulum will swing from one direction to the other from time to time. I think that most people would accept that it swung too far towards the template approach, so a reduction in the several hundred pages of guidance, which were well intentioned, to a much slimmer approach marks a further move towards trusting professional judgment. When the Minister appeared before the Select Committee—he called it a gruelling grilling, but in truth it was more of a walk in the park—he gave the example of what different GPs said they would do if a mother presented with a child who had bruises and signs of potential abuse. He said that the smartest and very best GPs said that they would phone the nursery school or some other professionals to ask if they had
	noticed something as well and, if so, they should proceed together. That is the kind of common-sense approach and professional judgment that we all want to see. One crucial issue is that there is somebody to report an incident to, and that one knows in all cases whom to report it to and one is confident that, as appropriate, it will be acted upon. That is why the issue of thresholds, which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) brought up earlier, is so important.
	It is also important that members of the public know how to report such matters. I hate to use the word “brand” in this context, but trusted brands such as ChildLine and the NSPCC play a vital role. We heard from the head of CEOP the other day that there might be a plan to introduce a new phone number, 114, 116 or something, in order to report incidents and abuse, but it does not sound like the smartest move imaginable when there are already recognised, accepted and acknowledged channels through which people can report.
	During the bulk of the time remaining to me, I want to discuss the abuse of young people by young people. I welcome the Government’s plans to extend the definition of domestic abuse to under-18s, because we really do not know the extent of these problems as they affect young people, so I also welcome the Home Affairs Committee’s focus on the area. We were all shocked to hear what the deputy children’s commissioner said the other day about the prevalence of violence and of sexual violence among young people in and out of gangs, and, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said earlier, hearing that 11-year-old girls are expected to perform sexual acts on a line-up of boys makes one sick to the stomach.
	One relatively new issue is sexting—a word that, when I became a Member two years ago, I had not heard of. One might have thought that it was some sort of wordplay, but now we know that it has a terrible ability to do harm and is not yet taken seriously in many different areas. When we on the Education Committee asked the head of CEOP how such matters were reported to the police, how they dealt with them and how many cases they had heard of, it became apparent that, although he obviously takes it very seriously, in many places its prevalence is not yet fully appreciated or acted upon.
	A dangerous relativism can sometimes creep into this subject, even among people who clearly care and are very knowledgeable about it, and in the case of sexting, for example, one occasionally hears somebody say, “Of course, sexting can be a part of growing up and an important part of sexual discovery.” Call me old-fashioned, but I just think that that is wrong. I think that 12-year-old, 13-year-old or 14-year-old girls being forced into, coerced into or voluntarily sending naked or semi-naked pictures of themselves around the internet or on mobile phones is just plain wrong. In society, in government and in schools we have to be unafraid to say that, because if we do not, we put young girls in particular in a very difficult position at a vulnerable time of their lives, when they might be under all sorts of pressure to do all sorts of things that they do not naturally want to do. I think we owe that to them.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but the time limit will have to be reduced to
	six minutes, and I still cannot hold out any hope that all four will get in. If people wish to speak for less time, it is not an offence to do so.

Nicholas Dakin: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who as always speaks most perceptively and with great clarity.
	It has been good to sit through the whole debate and to hear the strong cross-party consensus on tackling the issue of safeguarding children, an issue that we all know is of the utmost importance. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the shadow Secretary of State, on bringing it to the House, and congratulate previous Secretaries of State and Ministers and, indeed, the current Secretary of State and Ministers on their leadership. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who led for the Government in this debate, has an excellent record on the issue and has shown real leadership in taking the baton forward, as it is his duty to do.
	I would have to say, as a professional in education, that safeguarding is one of the most difficult issues that we have to face. In many ways, it is more difficult than the challenges of attendance, retention and achievement, because it is more subtle and difficult to be clear about. For many young people, school is a point of stability in their lives. Many young people have massive challenges in their private lives outside school, and school provides them with solidarity and shelter in a storm.
	Professionals, be they in education, health, the justice system or social work, need to get the balance right, and that is a difficult challenge to meet. I recognise the genuine progress that I have seen in my professional life in moving matters forward in relation to safeguarding. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State was right to emphasise the importance of the five outcomes of Every Child Matters. That was a real step forward in dealing with this difficult agenda. We trivialise the focus on well-being at our peril. The Minister is nodding, and I am pleased that he recognises that it is important to capture that in moving things forward. In its focus on safeguarding after the baby Peter Connelly tragedy, Ofsted perhaps swung a little too far the other way, but it certainly made everybody sit up and think things through carefully and sharpened up everybody’s acts. It is important that the pendulum swings a little, but also that the fundamental centrality of purpose is not lost.

David Lammy: In that swinging of the pendulum, I wonder whether my hon. Friend recognises two things from his experience. First, there is concern among black and ethnic minority families that there are still not the relationships that are needed. We have seen across London an upsurge in black and ethnic minority families in the care system. Secondly, young people in care who reach the age of 18 can find themselves very vulnerable when they are suddenly bereft of any services and have to make decisions about their future.

Nicholas Dakin: My right hon. Friend makes a very important and cogent point from a position of great experience in this matter. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in this area.
	I would like to emphasise the crucial importance of local safeguarding children boards and applaud the comments of the shadow Secretary of State and the Minister about that. Those boards have greatly helped to bring together professionals across disciplines and across cultures. Cultures are very different, and making them work together with a focus on the child is a big challenge. I applaud and pay tribute to all professionals working in this arena, particularly, in my experience, the social workers in North Lincolnshire, who have always astounded me with their professionalism and done a very good job on behalf of local people.
	As the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) pointed out, this is a difficult world in which there are new challenges to do with e-safeguarding. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) talked about the difficulties to do with child sexual exploitation. We need to get to grips with those difficulties and challenges. We do that best by working together, cross-party, in allowing the leadership baton to be moved on from one Administration to another, creating a unity that spreads down through the country to local children safeguarding boards. We must bring people together, focused on the child’s outcomes and continuing, all of us in this House and outside it, to work together to ensure that children are safeguarded as best they possibly can be as we move forward.

Charlotte Leslie: I am delighted that there have been some fantastic contributions from both sides of the House on this incredibly important issue. As we have so little time, I will not attempt to emulate them. Instead, I shall turn the debate to an aspect that we have not discussed so far. We talk about a child-centred service, but what has been lacking from the debate is the view of the children themselves. In the brief time that I have, I shall share a couple of perspectives on their experiences of the care system from children whom we as members of the Select Committee met, and what we learned from that.
	The first thing that the children said, which is borne out in the recommendations, is that having one simple single point of contact where they could go if things went wrong was invaluable. I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that the NSPCC and ChildLine do an excellent job. They provide a brand that is widely recognised and if we are to do anything, our resources would be well spent supporting their increasing caseload and making sure that those resources are spread as widely as possible. It is not worth trying to reinvent the wheel when we have such a good wheel already in existence.
	The second thing that emerged from our meetings with the children was that their complaints were often not listened to. They felt isolated from a world of adults. That is particularly concerning when we consider the circumstances under which those children would come forward to make complaints. Abuse is sophisticated and complex. It is a deep psychological issue. Legislation needs to recognise that victims of abuse are often made to feel by their abuser that it is their fault, that they deserve it, that someone is going to come and get them if they tell anyone in authority, or that it is perfectly normal. So when a child comes
	forward with a complaint against the adult world, that should be taken extremely seriously. Professionals need to recognise that.
	On the point about being told that abuse is normal and becoming acclimatised to what is, in fact, unacceptable behaviour, there is a case to be made to infiltrate into young people’s learning environments simple objective facts about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. Abuse takes place in the world of the subjective, where children, as well as partners in abusive domestic relationships, no longer know what is right and what is wrong.
	Thirdly, we learned that key individuals can make a difference in lives, so the focus of the recommendations on the professionalism of social workers hit the nail on the head. A good professional can sometimes literally save lives. Fourthly, continuity matters. Often these children have been let down again and again, and trusted relationships have broken down. I very much welcome the Minister’s focus on more stable caring environments such as adoption and fostering. From the children’s perspective, that would make an enormous difference.
	We should recognise that, in the continuous care cycle, the problem does not end the minute the victim is removed from the source of abuse. The horror of abuse is that it can result in a cycle of abuse, with the abused becoming abusers. The echoes of trauma and terror can reverberate a long way down the line. In our continuing care for victims, we need to look into the long term to make sure that that is recognised.
	The recommendations and guidelines are massively helpful. The complexity of the issues that abuse and victimisation raise cannot be left to simplistic tick-boxing. Those issues should be the subject of sophisticated professional expertise and I am delighted that from across the House there is momentum to make that happen.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There are two speakers left. If they could share the time available and perhaps take just three minutes each, it would help enormously and everybody would get in.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. I want to emphasise the cross-party support by saluting the promotion of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) from the Education Committee to the Opposition Front Bench. That is a signal that there is wide agreement on many issues today.
	I shall make several brief points. First, Professor Munro is right to signal the need for a change of culture and for agencies to work together more effectively. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who was in effect describing agency failure and lack of co-ordination between agencies. He was spot on. He was describing a tragic situation, but Professor Munro’s approach to cultural change and agencies working together is excellent.
	Secondly, I salute the fact that the chief social worker is to be appointed. I want to underline the importance of agencies working together by welcoming the fact that
	both the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and the Minister present today were involved in the selection of that person. It is necessary for those Departments to work together.
	That brings me to my third point, which is that it is critical to start thinking about young people in a continual line, from when they are born onwards. This is to do with the structure of the Department for Education. As I have said before, I think that it should be merged with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, because people aged 15, 16 and 17 are abused and can find it difficult to express themselves about it. I think that the Department for Education should be bigger and should encompass all those matters.
	Last but not least, I want to refer briefly to the social work college. It is imperative that it is established. We have to get the training right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) was spot on in her description of the children whom the Education Committee met. I was horrified to discover that training is preventing proper relationship building between children and the people to whom they signal their complaints. We must get that right.

David Ward: I will confine myself to making one point about this multifaceted topic.
	Complimentary comments have rightly been made about social workers. For many social workers, it is not a question of whether there will be a difficult case when they go in each day, but of whether one of their many difficult cases will blow up overnight when they go home.
	One of the safest places for young people, as we have heard, is school. That is not always the case, but particularly for those from dysfunctional homes, it is seen as a safe place to be. Although complimentary remarks have been made about social workers, we really need to listen to the concerns that educational social workers have. Local authority educational social workers regard their client, first and foremost, as being the child. I am concerned, as are they, about who the client will be as central budgets go down and are devolved out to schools. If the new academies and free schools, and even the maintained schools that are allocated central budgets, decide not to spend that money on educational social workers, they will be picking and choosing the children whom they have in their schools. Many of those schools think that the educational social worker should regard them as the client and not the child.
	I am extremely concerned that we have not worked out the relationships between the Government and the new schools, and between the local education authority and the new schools. The Education Committee heard about that today. There is still a vital contribution to be made in supporting schools and monitoring schools, but also in challenging schools about their attendance policies. In particular, schools must be challenged if they are deciding whether or not to chase pupils who are not in school.
	Recently, a mother came to my surgery whose young son had been out of school for 10 weeks. There had been a half-hearted attempt at a managed move and
	they were considering a transfer. If that child had been on course for five A* to C grades, he would have been in school. The truth is that the school was not too bothered about whether the child went in. An educational social worker would have been bothered. That is the big concern that has not been addressed since right at the beginning. It was mentioned when we considered the Academies Act 2010. Who is the client? First and foremost, it must be the child, not the school.

Lisa Nandy: This debate could not be more important, because it concerns those children who most need and deserve our support. Many of them are children for whom parental care has failed, and in some cases the state has also failed them. These children have no choice but to rely on us to protect them, which is one of the heaviest responsibilities placed on the Government. There is an urgency to the situation that marks it out further still. For a young child, just two months represents 1% of their childhood. If we get this wrong, that is time that they will never get back. Every moment counts.
	Whether we succeed or fail for those children will depend almost entirely on the quality of relationships that they have with the people who are charged with protecting them. That is the central point that must be recognised and not get lost in the welcome reforms that the Government are pursuing.
	We have heard about the pressure on front-line professionals, but while the spotlight in the Department often falls on education, authoritative voices such as the former Children’s Commissioner for England and the chair of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services have warned that the wider framework of support for children is being dismantled, with dangerous consequences for some of the children who can least afford to bear them.
	Increasing overall resources is not an option, so Ministers must look carefully at their priorities. There are now more than twice as many staff employed in the Department’s free schools unit as in the safeguarding unit. Youth services, which were a lifeline for the most at-risk young people, are disappearing, while a national citizen service is being developed. That is an admirable scheme, but it is no replacement for ongoing support for the young people who need it most. For some of them, their youth worker is the consistent adult in their life, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) outlined so compellingly. They really matter to children among their other priorities.
	I had the opportunity to work with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), before I came to this place, and I have scrutinised his work over the past two years as a member of the Education Committee. I am absolutely certain that he is passionate about his job and the need to listen to children, and he is right that we need to move away from a defensive culture in social work practice, trust professionals to use their instincts and encourage and enable them to be more proactive. However, I would fail in my duty to children if I did not address the real concerns that exist about the strain on the relationships that lie at the heart of effective child protection.
	The professionals who make a vital difference to children at risk—their social workers, who do an impossible job day in, day out—are now dealing with unmanageable case loads, as the Minister’s own adviser, Professor Eileen Munro, has warned. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about the difficulties inherent in the task of social work, and he was absolutely right to do so, but do Ministers know that polling suggests that one in six social workers now have more than 40 cases? Speaking as someone who spent nearly a decade working with some of the most vulnerable children in contact with the child protection system, that figure is of real concern to me, as it is to many other people.
	More than half of social workers believe that their case loads are unmanageable, and the children’s rights director tells me that children themselves are now starting to voice their concerns about social work case loads. Will the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), tell us urgently what she will do about that? if social work is the fourth emergency service, as the Under-Secretary said, greater flexibility on its own is not enough in the face of unprecedented demand.
	The establishment of the social work college should help. It is based on the landmark recognition that relationships are everything in child protection, and that professional skills and judgment are worth their weight in gold and demand the same professional status in society as we accord doctors and other professionals. What progress has been made to resolve the disputes that have beset the foundation of the college?
	Will the Minister of State respond to the concern that, one year on, there is still no chief social worker in post to stand up for the profession? I was grateful to the Under-Secretary for updating us on the fact that recruitment is currently under way, but can the Minister of State provide us with more details about how exactly the post will work and when somebody will begin the job?
	I expect the Minister of State recognises why there has been such concern about delays in implementing the Munro review, and especially about the confusion over the impact that health reforms will have. There is a real danger that we will end up with more piecemeal reform, which is precisely the opposite of what is needed. Real strides forward were made in persuading agencies to work together to keep children safe after the tragic death of Victoria Climbié 12 years ago. This must not be the moment when it is allowed to unravel. Progress in child safeguarding is the last Government’s legacy, and many Labour Members can rightly be proud of it, but it can and should also be the current Government’s legacy. We will do everything we can to ensure that that is the case.
	There is evidence that agencies are retreating into their core functions. I repeat the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) that in cutting out prescription, Ministers must be careful not to send front-line professionals whose daily work brings them into contact with children but is not restricted to them a dangerous signal that keeping children safe is not their responsibility.
	Professionals need clarity, and it is our responsibility to provide it, so I invite the Minister to consider the impact of the shift of focus in the Department, which was formerly called the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The change of name that was not just
	symbolic; it was an important shift that provided results for children, which I have seen for myself. Its abandonment has left some children falling between Departments and teams, which too often focus on services rather than children. Ministers could never have intended this situation, which arose recently, but the Education Secretary learned from the Education Committee that another Department had started a trial that exposed children to ionising radiation against the wishes of the four Children’s Commissioners and the medical profession. He was not even aware of that, much less consulted.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for his compelling speech, which showed what can happen when the system breaks down and goes wrong.
	There is a real risk that we will have such a debate in a decade’s time in a context in which some children have fallen further behind and others are still at risk. A unique opportunity to reform the system will have been wasted. We can and must do better. In a decade, I would like to stand here—or preferably at the Government Dispatch Box—when no child is constrained by their background; when no child is left in abusive or neglected homes; when no child is ignored when they raise serious concerns; when no child believes that they cannot do better; and when no child is passed around from pillar to post around the care system, forced to recount their harrowing experiences to a succession of anonymous adults. In short, in 10 years’ time, no child’s life chances should be determined before they are born.
	Members on both sides of the House share that vision, so I want to extend an offer to the Minister to build a shared consensus on children above politics, and to work together to create a comprehensive strategy to keep children safe—one that involves the care and child protection systems as a whole; one that gives front-line professionals the tools, clarity and skills they need, and the freedom to exercise them; and one that, above all, recognises that we are operating in a new reality, in which agencies are under pressure. If we are not careful, the sense of shared responsibility that has been built up over the previous decade will be lost when children need it most.
	Perhaps uniquely in this area, the quality of relationships is sometimes more important than the system. It is the job of professionals to do the best they can for children—many of them up and down the country do so on a daily basis, often against the odds—but it is our job to create a system that values and recognises their work, to support those relationships, and to support children through them. This is more than just a debate; it is an opportunity to break a cycle that, despite efforts by hon. Members on both sides of the House, still condemns far too many children to a life that falls well short of what they deserve.

Sarah Teather: I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on calling this debate; a debate that brings Members on both sides of the House together is welcome. We largely support similar positions, and we have managed
	to get away from the tone of debates in the House that cast more heat than light, perhaps including the earlier one.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on her promotion to the Opposition Front Bench, and on her excellent start. I respect her wish to stand at the Government Dispatch Box, but from my perspective, she should be careful what she wishes for. She said she hoped we might be able to work together. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), has told me that he has involved in his work the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and the previous hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Oona King, who is now a Member of the other place. He even said—tongue in cheek—that he has a Liberal Democrat councillor on one of his groups. [ Interruption. ] I thought that would be the most controversial thing I could say.
	Government Members recognise that this issue cuts across party political boundaries. A number of hon. Members have particular expertise and some who have been lawyers have spoken from their personal experience, whereas others have spoken about experiences in their constituencies. Many of the Opposition Members who have spoken served as Ministers and continue to take a deep and profound interest in these matters.
	The issue is a huge priority for the Government and it is one that we take seriously. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very grateful for the positive comments made by Members from all parties about his leadership on this matter. We have been particularly active on the subject right from the beginning. As he said, the first review that the Government undertook was the Munro review. Overhauling the child protection system to try to ensure that we place professionalism at the centre, recognising the vulnerability of children in the care system and tackling child exploitation are the three key areas where the Government have been particularly active over the past two years. In responding to the varied comments from hon. Members, I want to make a few remarks about our general reforms before I deal with the issue of child sexual exploitation, which formed the bulk of the debate.
	The key principle behind our approach is a determination to restore a focus on the needs of children to a system that had become overburdened with bureaucracy and box-ticking. I think that everybody will recognise that although we would like to remove all risks to children’s safety, that is not a realistic aim and we must accept that no system will ever be able to ensure that a child remains free from harm. The important thing is that professionals are empowered confidently to assess and judge risks and make decisions in the interests of the child. The hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) spoke from her perspective as a family lawyer about how she saw the enormous burden on many professionals on the front line who, if they had been given more freedom to use their professional judgment, would be able to do so better and in a way that is more in the interests of children.
	It is important to state that the reforms made over many years were well intentioned. The work of many thousands of professionals has been incredibly dedicated, but the child protection system has continued to fail far too many children. Sadly, the evidence is only too
	familiar, with shockingly poor life chances for children in the care system, thousands of children left waiting for foster carers and adoptive parents, and high-profile cases of sexual exploitation, such as the one in Rochdale. I shall deal with that case in a moment.
	Starting with the Munro review, we have proposed a new culture in child protection so that we have a system in which the needs of the children always come first and in which hard-working professionals have the time to spend with families. The hon. Member for Wigan asked what we can do to release more time for professionals. Of course, that is exactly what Munro is all about. We need to ensure that they have the power to make decisions and that the care system offers the most vulnerable children in our society real support and protection when they need it most. Most of all, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) said, we must ensure that children’s voices are heard because they have been too often ignored.
	The three new guidance documents we announced yesterday for consultation are a significant step towards making that culture change a reality. By replacing over 700 pages of rules and instructions with 68 pages of short, precise guidance we are putting power back in the hands of front-line professionals. The documents aim to provide clarity while allowing scope for professional judgment and innovation. They set out the things that must be done and then allow social workers, police, health professionals and others to do their work based on the needs of the individual child and family without being hampered by unnecessary rules and regulations. They give local areas more freedom to organise their services in a way that suits their needs and is set to their own time scales. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke about MASH as a prime example of where multi-agency working can make a difference, empowering professionals to work quickly on the ground when a referral is made.
	Of course, it is vital that in all that work the local safeguarding boards continue to join up the work across professional boundaries, including in education, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said. Regardless of the school system, that is essential. The requirements of welfare are the same regardless of the school the child is in as the duty of care under the Children Act 2004 remains exactly the same.
	In addition to freeing professionals from unnecessary rules and regulations, we are acting to support excellence in social work. This means attracting high-calibre people to the profession and supporting career development. Working with the Department of Health and the Social Work Reform Board, we have introduced new professional standards, launched the new college of social work, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned, and made more than £130 million available for social work reform and improvement from 2010-12.
	We are in the process of appointing a new chief social worker to be a strong voice for the profession. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we aim to appoint in July, which I hope answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Wigan. The number of qualified social workers has risen steadily from 96,000 in 2008-09 to 106,000 in 2011-12, which is a welcome step in the right direction.
	Most hon. Members mentioned child sexual exploitation, which has a particularly high profile following the Rochdale case. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke very starkly about the problem that many young people face of being treated not as victims, but as criminals, or as having somehow asked for it and provoked the abuse that has devastated their lives. They are treated as though they behaved in some way to bring it on themselves, only compounding the insult already done to them. The hon. Member for Bristol North West and others spoke about the particular difficulties for many young people in recognising that they are victims. It is not always clear to them that they are the victims in this situation as they sometimes mistake their treatment for love or affection, which can make it difficult to identify young people in that position and help them to recover from the abuse that they have suffered.
	I know that the hon. Member for Rochdale has briefed the Under-Secretary on his experience in his constituency and has told me that he was grateful for the Under-Secretary’s interest in the issue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned out-of-area placements, and they are an ongoing concern for the Government.
	The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke about different patterns of abuse and made it clear that this is not specifically an Asian issue. In that area, there was that particular pattern, but different patterns occur in different areas, a point that Sue Berelowitz made strongly in her contribution to the Home Affairs Committee this week. Boys as well as girls can be abused, and it is often more difficult for professionals to pick up those problems. Such abuse is often under-reported and it is important that we get better at discovering it. The hon. Lady also raised the need to work together across different professional boundaries. On the child sexual exploitation action plan, the Attorney-General, the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice are all working together because we recognise the complexity of the issue.
	The plan was published in November and we have now received Sue Berelowitz’s initial report. We intend to respond to that before the summer and we take the concerns that she has raised very seriously. The House will be aware that the Secretary of State asked her to bring forward some of her work to ensure that we pick up all the issues of concern.
	Mothers and fathers have a big role to play in helping youngsters make healthy, informed choices about relationships and sexual health. All the evidence indicates that child sexual exploitation can affect any family. It is vital that we support families to make sure that they are able to pick up the tell-tale signals of abuse. There is some helpful advice available, for example the “Spot the Signs” leaflet which is available on the Barnardo’s website. It is important to encourage all parents to be the eyes and ears—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly  put and agreed to .
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the updated statutory guidance to safeguard and promote the welfare of children published on 12 June 2012; and calls on the Government to ensure that the needs of the child are at the centre of all assessments and decision-making processes regarding safeguarding, that appropriate information and guidance is provided to young people so they understand the risks of abuse and sexual exploitation, that all local authorities and decision-makers are upholding the highest standards when it comes to integrated care access and multi-disciplinary and multiagency working, and that early intervention programmes are promoted on the best available evidence, and to clarify who is responsible within Government for implementing the measures included in the new guidance.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Sittings of the House (21 June) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr  Newmark .)
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House (21 June)

David Heath: I beg to move,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 21 June—
	(1) the House shall meet at 9.30 am, and will first proceed with any private business, petitions, and motions for unopposed returns;
	(2) Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall apply to the sitting on that day with—
	(a) the omission of paragraph (1) and of the proviso to paragraph (7); and
	(b) the insertion of references to 2.30 pm as the moment of interruption;
	(3) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), no opposed business shall be taken after the moment of interruption;
	(4) no questions shall be taken, save as provided in paragraph (5) below;
	(5) at 11.00 am the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members;
	(6) if the House is in committee at 11.00 am, and the Speaker’s intention to permit such questions, statements or explanations has been made known, the occupant of the chair shall leave the chair without putting any question, and report that the committee has made progress and ask leave to sit again;
	(7) the proviso to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of general committees) shall not apply;
	(8) no general committees shall meet after 2.30 pm;
	(9) when a substantive motion for the adjournment of the House has been made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith; and
	(10) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
	It seems only yesterday that I last had the opportunity to address the House on a procedural motion as a result of an objection from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but of course I am delighted to do so again. I am just saddened that he does not seem to have joined us.
	The motion is simple. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the noble Lady the Lord Speaker have invited that remarkable lady, Aung San Suu Kyi, to address Members of both Houses in Westminster Hall on Thursday 21 June. The motion simply adjusts the hours of the House on that day as if it were a Friday sitting to accommodate that visit and to allow Members to hear her. The House will therefore sit at 9.30 am. I hope this will be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I commend the motion to the House.

Angela Smith: We support the motion. It is a simple change in the business to accommodate the important address to both Houses of Parliament by Aung San Suu Kyi, which I think most Members will be looking forward to. I note that there will also be a business statement, which will, of course, give us the opportunity of listening once again to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).

Local Government

That the draft Community Right to Challenge (Fire and Rescue Authorities and Rejection of Expressions of Interest) (England) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 30 April 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Dunne.)
	The  Deputy  Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 June (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 30 April 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Dunne.)
	Question agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS’ FUND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).
	That this House resolves, pursuant to section 3 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948 and section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, that the following shall be substituted for paragraph (6) of the Resolution of this House of 7 March 2005 [S.I., 2005/657] with effect from April 2012—
	“(6) the relevant percentage to be applied each April is the percentage applied for the purposes of Part I of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 in respect of that April”.—(Mr  Dunne .)
	Question agreed to.

WOMEN IN SCIENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

Valerie Vaz: I am grateful for the granting of this debate and to the Minister for his attendance. I hope that he takes this debate in the spirit intended, rather than along party political lines, because the role of women in science is a matter for the whole country and where we see ourselves as a nation in the future. It is particularly important because other countries are taking investment in science seriously. I hope to demonstrate, first, that there is a problem; secondly, that the current solution to women and science, as suggested by the Government policy to cut the grant to the United Kingdom Resource Centre, is not adequate to address the problem; and, thirdly, that there are solutions to the problem.
	I pay tribute to those women scientists who have made discoveries that have changed the world: Dorothy Hodgkin, who should have been awarded the Nobel prize for her structure of penicillin and vitamin B12; Rosalind Franklin, who in my view should have shared the Nobel prize with Watson and Crick for her work on the structure of DNA and RNA; and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered the existence of pulsars, helped build the telescope and had to be persistent in recording and convincing her supervisor about the existence of pulsars. He went on to win the Nobel prize but she was not included—there seems to be a pattern here—although she went on to become the first president of the Institute of Physics. What about the consultant Dr Wendy Savage, who, when she first came to the London hospital, was told by her senior consultant:
	“there’s no place in gynaecology and obstetrics for women”,
	or Professor Lesley Yellowlees, the first woman president in the 171-year history of the Royal Society of Chemistry?
	There are many more women who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes, particularly in Bedford college, where I studied biochemistry. It was set up by Elizabeth Jesser and was the first higher education college for women, producing pioneering women scientists. It is always the case that women have to ask for things and start movements. We are never given anything directly. Dr Elizabeth Blackwell was the first woman doctor, while Dr Sophie Bryant was the first woman to be awarded a doctorate.
	I had the pleasure to host a reunion of some of those spirited women, who, with their persistence, made it easier for future generations, who perhaps sometimes do not realise the difficulties women scientists used to face. That is the spirit that runs through this country and gives it backbone, and it must be harnessed and cherished, not abandoned.
	What about science now? In my view, women in science—indeed, science generally—are under threat. The Biochemical Society has conducted a survey in which women scientists expressed a number of concerns—I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the survey, but if not, I am happy to send it to him. Those women scientists cited inflexible funding structures, which mean that women are unable to take time out, perhaps to look after children, without being left behind. Universities could be more supportive of families and child care, thereby making it easier for women to balance family
	life and work. Any time taken off—say, for child care—results in a lack of publications, and it is hard to compete for jobs without published work. Short-term contracts cannot provide job and financial security, and are not conducive to family life. In 2001, 51% of all women academic staff were on fixed-term contracts, compared with 44% of men, and the percentage increase for women was 58%, compared with 20% for men. In 2011, 67% of part-time staff were women.
	Let me turn to the United Kingdom Resource Centre for women, the body set up to help employers and organisations to enable women to achieve their potential across the STEM and SET work force—that is, in science, technology, engineering and maths, or in science, engineering and technology. The UKRC has identified that 5.3% of all working women—or one in 20—are employed in a SET occupation, compared with one in three men. Nearly 100,000 female STEM graduates are either unemployed or economically inactive. That is bad for the economy, particularly in engineering, which is a predominantly male work force, with many engineers over 50 and due to retire in the next 10 years. This is a golden opportunity to make the sector gender-inclusive. The UKRC has also worked with a major firm called Arup, which has given it a glowing testimonial. It has also found that in 2009 girls accounted for 48.8% of STEM GCSE exam entries, but only 42.2% at A-level, and that women accounted for only 33.2% in higher education, with only 9.6% in computing and 22.2% in physics.
	What about the solutions? I urge the Minister to think again about cutting the grant and changing the nature of the work conducted by the UKRC, and to work with the UKRC alongside any other initiatives that the Government want to set up.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason the decision should be reconsidered is that the UKRC has, over seven or eight years, built up a lot of expertise? By making the change that they have, the Government are in danger of losing the benefit of all that experience.

Valerie Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for the work that she is doing for women in science. Indeed, I will mention her later in relation to a publication that she edited.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House this evening. Is she aware that there is a CBI report out, entitled “SET for growth”, which indicates that there will be a critical need for science, engineering and technology students over the coming years? Does she feel that, for that reason alone, the Government should reconsider their decision, which will reduce the number of ladies involved in those professions?

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I absolutely agree with him. That is why we are all here this evening: because we take the issue seriously.
	The UKRC has the expertise. It is carrying out good work, it has a recognised brand name and it is an organisation that can collate, draw together and disseminate
	good practice. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. UKRC needs core funding to do regional outreach work, which is not readily supported by employers, and to direct services to unemployed women and returners. It cannot charge for support services such as mentoring, as the cost would be prohibitive to small companies.
	The Minister said in a written ministerial statement on 3 February 2011 that a number of organisations would be responsible for collecting data. One already exists, however: the UKRC. It would save on costs. People have to pay for figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and an employer that did not want to change its practices might not want to pay for UKRC’s services. Core funding is therefore required to enable UKRC to show such employers that part-time women scientists are still committed to their work and the organisation.
	Employing women of child-bearing age is, unfortunately, still an issue—especially now, as some employers want to hire and fire at will. I ask the Minister to think again about the Government’s policy of using UKRC to find ambassadors, because the problem of women in science will not be solved by volunteers alone. I also ask him to look at some of the solutions put forward by women scientists responding to the Biochemical Society. Those solutions include: establishing funding streams that are not conditional on an academic publication record; removing the upper age limit on career advancement grants to give flexibility; providing funding or fellowships for part-time positions, to encourage women to have flexible working arrangements; and supporting the work of the Daphne Jackson Trust by providing grants or support for returners. If the Government were to provide a grant that resulted in a commercial gain from the research, perhaps they could take a percentage as a return.
	I ask the Minister again to consider providing clear targets, which is the main way of measuring improvements in achieving equality. That has also been suggested by the Campaign for Science and Engineering. Will he also consider adopting a long-term strategy, rather than one that simply responds to demographic change? Such a strategy must be built within the system, from school onwards.
	I also ask the Minister to look at the publication from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—brilliantly edited by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) and published by the Smith Institute last year—entitled “Unlocking Potential”. It found that there was no shortage of women to take up the challenge. The information and evidence on how to recruit and retain women scientists is there, in that pamphlet. Will the Minister also ensure that Government funding for all activities for diversity in science is made transparent by being published, historically and in future?
	I have to sound a note of caution at this point. Our competitors are getting ahead of us. In a recent article in the New Scientist, Penny Sarchet wrote:
	“Germany has been quietly funnelling a considerable amount of money into science and research with the goal of becoming one of the ‘world’s best three science nations by 2020’.”
	Germany has put money into increasing university attendance and boosting innovation to such an extent that, in 2011, the European Commission described it as an “innovation leader”, whereas the UK was an “innovation follower”. I do not know whether Members recall
	“Tomorrow’s World”, with the excellent James Burke and Judith Hann, which inspired quite a lot of us youngsters at the time. If there is a BBC producer listening, perhaps they could revive the programme and show it at peak time instead of “Strictly Come Dancing”, with presenters who are diverse in age and gender.
	Many companies see research and development as their engines for growth to develop and progress. Research cannot be measured by tick-boxes—it takes time. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will have been mesmerised by the transit of Venus. Everyone who is alive now will not be alive when Venus passes across the face of the sun again; certain things carry on long after we leave this earth. I hope that I have persuaded the Minister that investing in science and women in this country will provide a lasting legacy that will endure long beyond the next transit of Venus.

David Willetts: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on raising this important subject and on the way in which she has pursued her argument. She provided an impressive list of female scientists. As we know from the history of science, women who made great scientific advances did not always receive the credit they were due. I hope that that is all changing, however. The three scientists presenting the excellent television programme on the transit of Venus did an excellent job, and I hope that it contained a subliminal message for the audience that they should make no assumptions about the gender of a scientist.
	The Government are, of course, committed to promoting science as whole, with our funding settlement—the ring-fenced £4.6 billion a year—and we are also committed to promoting equality in the workplace, as all our announcements on flexible working and parental leave demonstrate. We certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the STEM work force should be diverse, should reflect wider society and should make use of all the talents available to it. She is correct that investing in science and research with a high-quality STEM work force is vital to our economy, and, more widely, to having a civilised society that is fully able to grasp and be at the frontier of scientific advance. Our research base misses out if it does not draw on scientists and engineers from as wide a talent pool as possible, including people who are economically disadvantaged, a wide range of ethnic groups and, of course, women.
	I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point about the way in which the research career structure has developed. The large number of short-term contracts can be tough for people—men or women—who are trying to combine a research career with raising a family. Looking at the situation, it is important to do what we can to help post-docs. That is one reason why we support the concordat to support the career development of researchers and the Vitae programme, which began under the previous Government and we are committed to maintaining. I do not think that the hon. Lady referred to Vitae—perhaps the one omission in her speech—which monitors what is happening and ensures that, wherever possible, we do not have post-doctoral researchers dropping out because the regime is hostile.
	When it comes to UKRC, we continue to believe that the best approach is to mainstream its work through all
	parts of the publicly funded research base to achieve the best outcomes for all under-represented groups. It was put to me by UKRC, after our original decision back in 2010, that it needed time to transfer its knowledge to, and engage with, a broad mix of partners. That was the reason that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills provided UKRC with a further £500,000 of transitional funding for the year 2011-12. I recognise that that has now come to an end, which is why the hon. Lady has raised the issue both at Prime Minister’s questions and in this debate.
	Let me briefly remind the hon. Lady of some of things we are doing to mainstream our work on diversity. There is, for example, the crucial work we do through STEMNET—Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Network. I will be at the Cheltenham science festival tomorrow and look forward to meeting STEMNET ambassadors there as I have in the past. On average, 40% of those ambassadors are female and, within the science and mathematics strands, it is 60%, showing that we have made a real effort to ensure that STEMNET ambassadors are truly representative.
	We continue to commit ourselves to raising our game on that. Indeed, there is a new STEM diversity programme. Late last year, I asked the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to lead jointly a programme to tackle the long-standing issue of diversity in STEM. They are taking this forward through their existing and excellent relationships with a diverse mix of STEM institutions and businesses to try to challenge leadership at all levels to take on responsibility for delivering equality and diversity. I know that the Royal Society has begun this process by consulting and engaging leaders in the scientific community to draw in expertise and commitment to the programme. Having participated in discussions with Sir Paul Nurse, I know how personally committed he is. The Royal Society is going to carry this forward with an 18-month policy study on this subject. The diversity programme of the Royal Academy of Engineering is engaging the professional engineering institutions, industry, education, and other STEM and diversity organisations. When we say that we are mainstreaming the work of the UKRC, we mean that we are continuing to ensure that women are properly represented as STEMNET ambassadors. The new STEM diversity programme involves the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Meg Munn: No one would want to argue with the principle of mainstreaming, but does the Minister not understand that the role played by the UKRC supported that mainstreaming by bringing together sources of expertise and developing new ways of working? For instance, companies were given a charter so that they really understood what they needed to do in order to mainstream. Does the Minister not accept that the tiny amount that is now being spent on women in science is simply not enough to tackle the issue raised by my hon. Friend about the competitiveness of other countries? The big budget for science is welcome, but please will he consider giving more money to UKRC?

David Willetts: I meant what I said about mainstreaming the UKRC’s work. We shall have to see through 2012-13, but I agree with Opposition Members that the UKRC has developed genuine expertise in this area, and part of
	the purpose of the transitional funding was to ensure that that expertise should not be entirely lost. We want it to be incorporated in the work of other groups which we consider to have, if anything, a wider reach than the UKRC. I am thinking of, for example, the big bang fair, the national science and engineering competition, the research councils UK fellowships, STEMNET—to which I have already referred—and the national academies. Much is being done to draw on the expertise of the UKRC so that greater progress can be made on diversity, and we believe that better value can be realised through those broader activities and the better direction of existing diversity projects.
	We continue to believe that mainstreaming the work of the UKRC is the best way forward, but I can report that we are making progress through the range of initiatives that are under way. I was struck by the evaluation of the 2010 big bang fair, which demonstrated that 48% of those who attended were girls and that the full range of socio-economic neighbourhoods were represented, with 30% of attendees coming from the lowest socio-economic quartile. As for the national
	science and engineering competition, 45% of both entrants and winners have consistently been girls. I was in Birmingham for the results of the competition, and I observed that girls and young women were very well represented at all levels of the school and academic process.
	We think we can ensure that the expertise of the UKRC is mainstreamed, while also ensuring that there is diversity in other dimensions through a commitment to equality that involves ethnic diversity and opportunities for people from a wider range of economic backgrounds. I salute the support for women in science that has been expressed by those who have spoken this evening, and I will of course continue to listen to their advice and engage with them. I am sorry not to have been able to address their specific concern about the UKRC, but I fully accept the challenge of continuing to be held accountable for ensuring that we do indeed mainstream the expertise developed by that organisation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.